Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« January 2012 | Main | March 2012 »

February 29, 2012

Mid-Major Rankings: Pre-Conference Tourney Edition

March Madness has the feel of another round of upsets.

Sure, Kentucky looks dominant. Syracuse has been impressive in winning the Big East. North Carolina and Duke are, well, North Carolina and Duke. Kansas and Missouri played a game for the ages in Lawrence, both showing how tough an out they'll be next month.

Nevertheless, it's that time of year. And, similar to last year, there's a lot of teams lurking in the shadows that could bask in the tournament spotlight. Who will be shredding nets and office brackets in a few weeks? Here's your list of the leading candidates...

1) Wichita State (26-4, 16-2 MVC)

Murray State is ranked higher than the Shockers, but Wichita is better equipped to make a deep run in the NCAA tournament. They've won eight in a row and 15 of their last 16. They have a barrage of good shooters, including a center who can hit from behind the arc. They have veteran leadership, especially with Joe Ragland running the floor. They sit in the top four in their conference in every positive statistical category. They don't get into much foul trouble and rarely beat themselves. They also have the best coach few have heard of in Gregg Marshall. I've followed Marshall since he took his Winthrop team to Springfield, MO, in an ice storm so bad that he held a practice session in an airport hangar, and still walked out with an impressive win over a good Missouri State team. The guy is a consistent winner and will be the hot name in the offseason. The Shockers are going places, and it shouldn't surprise anyone.

2) Murray State (28-1, 15-1 OVC)

Two things that need to be of note. One is that, while the first team All-American list will likely not have Isaiah Canaan's name on it, he should be under some consideration. He is, without question, one of the best players in college basketball. Secondly, I was sickened at the fact that people were questioning whether the Racers could make the Big Dance as an at-large if they lost one more regular season game and didn't win their conference tournament. I don't want to see the seventh place Big East or Big Ten team in at the expense of Murray State. If you finish that far back in your conference, any conference, you don't need an at-large bid. So, while the Racers should win the Ohio Valley tournament, if they don't, they better be an absolute lock … and not in a play-in game, either.

3) Temple (22-6, 11-3 Atlantic 10)

Yes, the Owls are coming off a loss. Yes, other teams are ranked higher. But winning 10 of your last 11 does say you're playing some of your better basketball right about now. The Owls have a terrific backcourt attack with Ramone Moore, Khalif Wyatt, and Juan Fernandez. While there's a little concern that Temple's frontcourt packs a much smaller punch, teams that go deep in the tournament always have loaded backcourts, and Temple's can match up with most any team in the country.

4) Creighton (25-5, 14-4 MVC)

After a somewhat puzzling three game skid, Creighton seems to be back on track as they've won their last four heading into Arch Madness in St. Louis. While Doug McDermott continues to be the workhorse of the Bluejays, Creighton's incredible shooting percentage as a team makes them a threat in every game they play in March. It's hard to stop a team that shoots lights-out on a regular basis, and Creighton seems to have found their touch. That, and their ability lately to win close games (Long Beach State and Evansville, notably) have them suited for a possible nice run in the Big Dance.

5) Drexel (25-5, 16-2 Colonial)

The conference that's sent George Mason and VCU to the Final Four now brings us the Drexel Dragons, who haven't lost a game since January 2nd. Drexel features a smaller lineup with balanced scoring (four players average double figures scoring-wise), but their calling card is in playing suffocating defense. Teams are averaging just a shade over 55 points a game against Drexel. with Cleveland State and Virginia managing to put up only 49 against the Dragons. If Drexel can keep the game low and slow, they'll make some noise.

6) VCU (25-6, 15-3 Colonial)

Shaka Smart's got his team on fire right now. The Rams have won 14 of their last 15, including a dominating performance over George Mason last weekend. VCU is winning games in the same fashion as last year, which makes them difficult but also makes them a major target. No one will let the Rams slip quietly past them this year. However, watching Darius Theus play is worth the price of admission all in itself.

7) Iona (24-6, 15-3 MAAC)

Haven't heard of the Gaels? They almost beat Purdue, throttled Maryland and basically cruised to a conference title. Their easy win over Nevada in BracketBusters definitely raised an eyebrow or two, as well. Keep an eye on Mike Glover, who is averaging close to a double-double a game (18 ppg, 9 rpg).

8) UNLV (24-6, 8-4 MWC)

UNLV is a solid team that won't be an easy out. However, going 3-3 in the last six games doesn't exactly say that they're peaking at the right time.

9) San Diego State (22-6, 8-4 MWC)

San Diego State is a solid team, with a solid coach, that won't be an easy out. However, like UNLV, going 3-3 in the last six games doesn't exactly say that they're peaking at the right time.

10) St. Mary's (25-5, 14-2 WCC)

St. Mary's finally broke the Gonzaga streak, which demands some recognition. However, in big games outside of the conference, the Gaels seem to struggle. For them to be considered for a deeper run, they've got to show they can win the big game outside of conference play.

Other Teams to Watch: Long Beach State (21-7), Long Island (22-8), George Mason (23-8), Oral Roberts (26-5), Belmont (24-7)

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 5:54 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 1

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth won at Daytona, outlasting Sunday's postponement and Monday's inferno to win on Tuesday.

"Brad Keselowski may have 200,000 followers," Kenseth said, "but I'm happy with just 42. And speaking of '42,' the race took a turn for the worse when Juan Montoya crashed into a jet-fueled track dryer. It was almost 'Juan and done.' That's what's called a 'Colombian-fuego."

2. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt finished second after his bid to overtake Matt Kenseth failed, arguably due to a block from Kenseth's Roush Fenway teammate Greg Biffle, who finished third. Earnhardt winless streak now stands at 130.

"How is a jet dryer like a Junior fan in the infield?" Earnhardt said. "They both got 'lit' at Daytona.

"Although I didn't win, I saved racing from a Kenseth-Biffle 1-2 finish, which, if it were a Farrelly brothers movie, would be called Humdrum and Humdrummer. That's victory in itself. At this point, I'll take any I can get."

3. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin's No. 11 FedEx Toyota led a race-high 57 laps and was a factor for the duration of the Daytona 500. But in the end, his charge to the front fell short and he finished fourth.

"My car was fast," Hamlin said, "but not as fast as the fastest car on the track. That would be Danica Patrick's No. 10 GoDaddy.com machine, which was moving at hyper speed. Just to clarify, that's the speed of hype."

4. Greg Biffle — Biffle led 44 laps at Daytona and finished third behind Matt Kenseth and Dale Earnhardt. Biffle was running second into the final corner, but never found the momentum to get past Kenseth.

"Even with Earnhardt pushing me," Biffle said, "I still couldn't get past Kenseth. I couldn't get by the car labeled Best Buy, which eventually said good bye. I guess I didn't bide my time correctly."

5. Jeff Burton — Burton led 24 laps at Daytona and finished fifth as the Richard Childress trio of Burton, Paul Menard, and Kevin Harvick finished 5-6-7 in the 500.

"This RCR team was impressive at Daytona," Burton said. "As opposed to 'burning with jet fuel,' we were 'cooking with gas.' We've all heard of 'gas and go.' Juan Montoya's crash has coined a new term: 'go and gas.'"

6. Paul Menard — Menard was fast in the Daytona 500, scoring a sixth in an eventful race marked by rain delays and Juan Montoya's fiery crash with a jet dryer during a lap 159 caution.

"It started at 7:00 PM and lasted until the next morning," Menard said. "No, I'm not talking about a Jeremy Mayfield bender; I'm talking about the Daytona 500. Or should I say the 'Daytona 500 Degrees?'"

7. Kevin Harvick — Harvick, one of the early favorites to win the 2012 Sprint Cup championship, posted a solid start to the season with a seventh in the Daytona 500.

"We're confident we can win it all this year," Harvick said. "In other words, we're 'expecting.' I urged everyone on this team to visualize a Cup title. So the seed has been planted. And by golly, there will be a berth later this year."

8. Carl Edwards — Edwards started on the pole at Daytona and finished eighth, successfully overcoming a late penalty and damage incurred in a lap 187 wreck.

"This race had it all," Edwards said. "including the four elements. There was water in the form of rain, and there was fire in the form of the blaze ignited when Juan Montoya crashed into a jet dryer. There was earth in the form of the sand used to absorb the jet fuel, and there was air, in the form of two Waltrip's in the broadcast booths."

9. Tony Stewart — Stewart's No. 14 Office Depot Chevrolet was fast at Daytona, as the defending Sprint Cup champion won his Gatorade Duel and was up front for much of Monday's 500.

"Considering the circumstances," Stewart said, "I'm pleased with the result. I can easily round into championship form, especially since my championship form is round."

10. Martin Truex, Jr. — Truex led at the midway point, collecting the $200,000 bonus, and finished 12th in the Daytona 500.

"Michael Waltrip is happy," Truex said. "Happy with my finish, and happy that Juan Montoya has displaced him as the driver most negatively associated with jet fuel."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:27 AM | Comments (0)

February 28, 2012

Best Wide Receivers Not in the HOF: 1970s

Who is the best wide receiver eligible for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, but not yet enshrined? When football fans cry "snub", there's a good chance they're talking about a wide receiver. For years, it was Lynn Swann or Art Monk. Now, it's guys like Andre Reed and Cliff Branch. Players at the other stat positions — quarterbacks and running backs — are elected to the PFHOF with much higher frequency than wideouts.

For this project, we'll examine in depth 25 eligible wide receivers with strong backing for the Hall of Fame: Cliff Branch, Tim Brown, Harold Carmichael, Cris Carter, Wes Chandler, Gary Clark, Henry Ellard, Irving Fryar, Charley Hennigan, Harlon Hill, Billy Howton, Harold Jackson, Herman Moore, Stanley Morgan, Drew Pearson, Art Powell, Andre Reed, Andre Rison, Sterling Sharpe, Del Shofner, Jimmy Smith, Mac Speedie, Hugh Taylor, Otis Taylor, and Billy Wilson. I believe only about five of those players deserve induction, but there's a case to be made for all of them.

It's difficult to compare players across eras at any position, and this is particularly true in the passing game, because the rules and statistics have changed so much. Today's wide receivers play 16-game schedules. They can't be bumped more than five yards downfield. Their quarterbacks are protected in ways Y.A. Tittle and Roger Staubach never dreamed of. They play in high-efficiency pass-oriented offenses, as opposed to the exciting but reckless bomb-it-down-the-field passing games of the past, when running was a way of life and throwing a sneaky change of pace or a mark of desperation. But we can certainly compare these players to their peers. Here's my list of 25, ranked by the number of times they were among the top 10 in their league in receiving yards:

Seven: Powell
Five: Brown, Carter, Clark, Jackson, Pearson, Shofner, Smith, Speedie, Wilson
Four: Branch, Ellard, Fryar, Hennigan, Howton, Moore, Sharpe, Otis Taylor
Three: Chandler, Hill, Morgan, Reed, Rison, Hugh Taylor
Two: Carmichael

To keep the statistics from skewing, I used top-five rankings (instead of top-10) for seasons before 1970, when the leagues were 8-16 teams rather than 26-32. This affected Hennigan, Howton, Speedie, Hugh Taylor, and Wilson, once each. The two who stand out on the list, obviously, are Powell and Carmichael. But let's review each player's résumé, in alphabetical order. We continue this week with WRs of the 1970s. If you're here for another era, check out our previous articles in this series:

Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1990s (Brown, Carter, Fryar, Moore, Rison, Smith)
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1980s (Chandler, Clark, Ellard, Morgan, Reed, Sharpe)
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1960s (Hennigan, Powell, Shofner, Otis Taylor)
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1950s (Hill, Howton, Speedie, Hugh Taylor, Wilson)

Cliff Branch
1972-85, Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders
501 receptions, 8,685 yards, 67 TD

Branch made four Pro Bowls, was four times first-team All-Pro, and played on three Super Bowl winners. He led the NFL in receiving touchdowns twice, and in receiving yards in 1974. From 1974-76, he was the dominant force at his position. During that three-year stretch, Branch caught 157 passes for 3,096 yards and 34 TDs. His three-year yardage and TD totals are the highest for any receiver in the 1970s, including the later years with a 16-game schedule. When you think about his numbers in the context of 14-game seasons and the defense-dominated '70s, they're nothing short of remarkable.

But Branch was only an exceptional player for those three seasons. He remained a good player for years afterwards, but there are lots of good receivers. His career-highs after '76 were 59 receptions (1980), and 858 yards and 7 TDs (both '81). Those are 16-game seasons, after the Mel Blount Rule and the changes that opened up pass blocking. That's when Steve Largent and James Lofton and the Air Coryell teams in San Diego were shattering receiving records. Branch actually led the Raiders in receiving only three times in his final nine seasons.

The 1970s Raiders have eight players in the Hall of Fame. Raider fans want Branch and Ken Stabler and Ray Guy and maybe a couple others in, as well. Those teams were consistently good, but they played in two Super Bowls. Can a team with a dozen HOFers really end up with just two championships? I know, they won in '83, but that's a different team: Marcus Allen, Howie Long, Mike Haynes ... the '70s Raiders already have an awful lot of Hall of Famers for a team that only won its own conference twice. If you really want to include '83, the Cliff Branch-Era Raiders, who won three Super Bowls, have twice as many HOFers as the 1980s 49ers, who won four. Branch is not a member of any NFL All-Decade team, receiving only one vote for the All-70s Team.

Harold Carmichael
1971-84, Philadelphia Eagles, Dallas Cowboys
590 receptions, 8,985 yards, 79 TD

Carmichael begins this exercise in a hole, as the only player on the list who ranked among the top 10 in receiving yardage fewer than three times. How does a guy who didn't stand out in his own era deserve Hall of Fame recognition? For one thing, Carmichael ranked among the top 10 in receiving TDs eight times, and as a possession receiver, his yardage totals don't fully reflect his value. He was voted to the 1970s All-Decade Team as a backup and was second-team All-Pro twice.

During the 1970s, Carmichael ranked 2nd in receptions, tied for 2nd in receiving TDs, and 4th in receiving yardage. He also had several very good seasons in the '80s, making the Pro Bowl in 1980 and going over 1,000 yards in '81. In 1979, Carmichael broke the NFL record for consecutive games with a reception, eventually stretching the mark to 127 before it was broken by Steve Largent in 1986.

I have a strange theory: the 1982 strike kept Carmichael out of Canton. Look at the man's career stats. He fell just short of 600 receptions, 9,000 yards, and 80 touchdowns. Projecting his '82 season to 16 games, Carmichael reaches 618 catches, 9,405 yards, and 81 TDs. Reaching those round numbers makes his stats look a lot different. A seventh-round draft pick remarkable for his height (6'8"), Carmichael led the Eagles in receiving yardage seven times and played in four Pro Bowls. He led the league in both receptions and receiving yards in 1973.

Harold Jackson
1968-83, Los Angeles Rams, Philadelphia Eagles, New England Patriots, Minnesota Vikings, Seattle Seahawks
579 receptions, 10,372 yards, 76 TD

During the 1970s, Jackson led all players in receptions, receiving yards, and receiving TDs. Jerry Rice in the '90s and Jackson in the '70s are the only Modern Era players to lead any decade in every major receiving category. Beyond the overall numbers, he led the league at various times in all of those categories, actually led in yardage twice (1969 and 1972). Jackson made five Pro Bowls and was remarkably steady, with over 500 receiving yards for 13 consecutive seasons, breaking Raymond Berry's record of 11. Jackson's record wasn't tied until Tim Brown in 2003, and finally broken by Terrell Owens and Tony Gonzalez almost 30 years later.

In 1968, the Eagles finished 14th in the 16-team NFL in passing yardage, and 15th in scoring, with just 14.4 points per game. In 1969, Jackson's first year with the team, they ranked 7th in passing yards and tied for 8th in scoring, jumping to 19.9 ppg. Jackson led the team in touchdowns (9) and led the NFL in receiving yardage. When Philadelphia traded Jackson to Los Angeles in 1973, the 6-7-1 Rams improved to 12-2. Jackson led the league in receiving touchdowns and was a consensus All-Pro.

In the '70s, Jackson gained 7,724 receiving yards, far ahead of 2nd-place Ken Burrough (6,343), and even farther ahead of celebrated players like Harold Carmichael (6,080), Drew Pearson (5,713), Cliff Branch (5,520), and Lynn Swann (3,982). Yet Jackson wasn't chosen to the All-70s Team, and he has never been a finalist for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I suspect it is here that Jackson's consistency has worked against him. Like Cris Carter and Tim Brown, Jackson was seen more as steady than exceptional. He's also a victim of timing. Shortly before Jackson retired, the NFL moved to a 16-game schedule and made several rules changes to substantially open up the passing game. Jackson's accomplishments — he retired with the most receptions and receiving yards of anyone who played his whole career in the NFL — were quickly overshadowed by Steve Largent, James Lofton, and Air Coryell.

Drew Pearson
1973-83, Dallas Cowboys
489 receptions, 7,822 yards, 48 TD

Many fans identify the HOF plights of Cliff Branch and Pearson together. Great receivers of the mid-late '70s, played on terrific teams, had a few brilliant seasons but didn't keep it up, mentioned often as Hall of Fame snubs but never enshrined. For what it's worth, neither has ever reached the Finalist stage of voting. Going by career numbers, Branch has a far stronger case: 501 receptions, 8,685 yards, 67 TD. He's ahead in every major category, way ahead in touchdowns.

When the 1970s All-Decade Team was chosen, however, Pearson was a first-team selection and Branch was left off entirely. Their stats in the decade are comparable, but Pearson found the postseason glory that eluded Branch until the 1980s, and teammates called him Mr. Clutch. That shifted with the end of the decade. Branch emerged from Fred Biletnikoff's shadow and starred in two Super Bowl wins, while the Cowboys' dynasty began to decline and Pearson was surpassed by Cowboy teammate Tony Hill. Branch's stat line in the '80s dwarfs Pearson's, by over 1,000 yards — 50% more yardage.

A statistical oddity about Drew Pearson: in his two best seasons, he scored a combined total of four touchdowns. In 1974, Pearson set career-highs — in a 14-game season, no less — for receptions and receiving yards. In 1977, he led the NFL in receiving yardage and was a consensus All-Pro. Both years, he caught just two TDs. In his 11-year career, Pearson led the Cowboys in receiving TDs only twice (1975-76).

Pearson made three Pro Bowls and three All-Pro teams, and from 1974-79, he was consistently among the top receivers in the NFL. It's useful to me, in thinking about these issues, to break them down by era. Below, I've organized HOF receivers by the decade in which they most established their greatness.

1945-54: Tom Fears, Elroy Hirsch, Dante Lavelli, Pete Pihos
1950-59: n/a
1955-64: Raymond Berry, Tommy McDonald, Bobby Mitchell
1960-69: Lance Alworth, Don Maynard
1965-74: Fred Biletnikoff, Bob Hayes, Charley Taylor, Paul Warfield
1970-79: n/a
1975-84: Charlie Joiner, Steve Largent, John Stallworth, Lynn Swann
1980-89: James Lofton, Art Monk
1985-94: Jerry Rice
1990-99: Michael Irvin

Some of those assignments are close calls. Swann, for instance, is generally thought of as a '70s guy. But since he caught only 11 passes as a rookie in 1974 and was a non-factor in Super Bowl IX, he fits better in the 1975-84 group. Let's break this down a little more, looking at both the Hall of Famers and the contenders we've examined.

There really aren't any Hall of Famers whose careers match up chronologically with Harold Jackson's. Joiner's best seasons came in the early '80s and the others all reached stardom in the '60s, whereas Jackson's career is truly centered in the '70s. Effectively, Jackson stands alone atop his era, leading all players in the '70s in every major receiving category — receptions, yards, and TDs.

Those of us who care about the Hall of Fame sometimes write derisively about "compilers" — that is, a compiler of stats, who has impressive career numbers without ever really being a great player. This doesn't apply to Jackson. He made five Pro Bowls and led the NFL in a major receiving category four times — more than Biletnikoff, Joiner, Irvin, Lavelli, Lofton, Monk, Stallworth, and Swann combined. Both the Eagles and Rams improved dramatically when they acquired Jackson. Look at that empty 1970s slot in the list of Hall of Fame receivers. Here's someone who would fit there perfectly.

If there's another receiver of this era who's worthy of HOF consideration, I suppose it might be John Gilliam, or Gene Washington of the 49ers, maybe Ken Burrough — or Carmichael, if you count him here instead of 1975-84. Stats again:

The interesting thing about this list is that many of these players need to be evaluated with serious consideration of their postseason accomplishments. Swann and Stallworth were legendary postseason performers. Pearson caught the pass that gave the play now known as a "Hail Mary" its name. Branch played very well in Super Bowls XV and XVIII and won three rings.

I would point out, though, that if we're trying to decide which potential HOF snub is most worthy of induction, we're arguing about who is the 5th-best receiver of the late '70s and early '80s. The late '80s and early '90s, meanwhile, have no one but Jerry Rice in the Hall of Fame. Were Branch and Carmichael and Pearson really more outstanding than Henry Ellard and Andre Reed and Sterling Sharpe? A wide receiver who was the 5th- or 6th-best of his generation is a player I'm okay leaving out of Canton. If a guy was the best receiver besides Jerry Rice, that's the sort of player I feel is a legitimate snub.

Branch, Carmichael, and Pearson were all very good receivers, and all had great seasons and unbelievable moments. But those are glimpses of greatness. They all had about three really good years, plus some others when they were above average. To me, no one from that group left a Hall of Fame legacy. Here's how I rank the best non-HOF receivers of the '70s:

1. Harold Jackson — Five-time Pro Bowler, first player to amass 10,000 receiving yards in the NFL.
HOF Qualifications: GOOD. He should probably be in.

2. Harold Carmichael — Four-time Pro Bowler whose size made him a unique threat to defenses.
HOF Qualifications: FAIR. He probably doesn't need to be in.

3. Cliff Branch — Four-time All-Pro and three-time Super Bowl champion who was exceptional in his prime.
HOF Qualifications: FAIR. He probably doesn't need to be in.

4. Drew Pearson — Had five standout seasons and played in seven NFC Championship Games.
HOF Qualifications: POOR. He probably shouldn't be in. But he was a heck of a player.

***

Read the other articles in this series:

Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1990s
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1980s
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1960s
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1950s

Posted by Brad Oremland at 5:15 PM | Comments (3)

February 27, 2012

The Inescapable Heat

Inexplicably, the fans cheered.

Why did the fans cheer? Their team was down a couple dozen points, their scorned ex-hero was showcasing his talents on a pace equal of the best statistical season in NBA history, and, after all, they would have to wake up the next day to the same lives and problems. And yet they heartily cheered. LeBron James may win, but he'll never again be the people's champion.

This moment came two weeks ago as James made his third return trip to Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, which you may have heard is no longer his home office. The Heat, which had relegated the final three-and-a-half quarters of the game an exhibition after mercilessly building a 20-2 lead, were cruising. With the result a pending formality, James spent the third quarter putting on a show.

A powerful dunk. A deep three while being well guarded. Even one of those mid-range shots he never seemed to care for while playing for the home team. The Cavs may be much improved in their second year post-James, but their ex was strutting, reminding Cleveland of the stud it once had.

But then came the air ball.

In basketball parlance, it was a heat check — as in, "I'm so hot, let's check how far this streak can go." On first glance, the shot looked like a perfect swish. The ball grazed nothing, but the net as it descended back to earth, completing gravity's parabola. But half a beat later, the mind flagged the anomaly. A great NBA player just failed to make contact with anything solid on a shot attempt.

The chants and the taunts that follow an air ball are painfully dated after two decades. Players sometimes miss badly. It's the consequence of doing business in such volume. But this one shot, completely irrelevant in a season and even this game, spoke of a much grander truth.

If any other NBA player had produced this stretch of performance over a handful of possessions, the eye-popping would have easily overshadowed the one moment of over-extension. But LeBron James is not any other NBA player.

The Heat, barring structure-altering injuries or parallel developments, are juggernaut favorites to win the NBA title. Their additions like Shane Battier will give them options for the few minutes this postseason when James and Dwyane Wade getting dressed in the same locker room isn't enough to coast to a win. The Heat are going to win it all. And almost nobody will care.

The problem for Miami's principals is one of expectation. Yes, it began with their summer 2010 construction project and now-laughable pep rally. But the Heat could have easily distanced themselves from that tomfoolery, dismissing it as enthusiasm and earning respect through quiet victory.

Instead, the Heat have continually misstepped in reconciling themselves with the rest of the world. James, in particular, seems completely unprepared to handle the new universe he molded when he cast himself to star in The Decision.

Most stars have discernible motives. Michael Jordan wanted to sell sneakers. Magic Johnson wanted to entertain and be entertained. Allen Iverson wanted the respect due a hustler. Even today, Kobe Bryant is pathologically obsessed with winning at all costs. But what exactly James wants at this point is unclear.

The day before his return to Cleveland, James clumsily answered questions about a hypothetical free agent return to his former organization. As Deadspin's Dom Cosentino wrote, James' forays into the subjunctive never fail to make him look worse. It's as if, completely unsure what he wants from his charmed life, James is dabbling in alternate realities, desperately searching for one in which he can win over each of the haters.

But outside of mining happiness through quantum physics, what is James' ideal endgame? Clearly, he is not one for poetry, as he had the perfect local hero story in the palm of his hand in Cleveland. James' need for adoration rejected the renegade role like a week-old black market kidney when he briefly dabbled in wearing the black hat. Even the transparent "us vs. them” paradigm Kobe and Jordan gerrymandered their worlds into is outside of James' fairytale ending. If you could get LeBron James in a moment stripped of self-awareness, pretense, and hyper-analysis, I think he would be mortally stumped by the question, "How would you like this to end?”

At the end of the 2009-10 season, James was hot. Every media outlet covered him daily. He had been on 60 Minutes and spoken with Larry King. Suitors were lining up for him. And then came his heat check, his moment where he wondered just how hot he was. The Decision was his heat check; we're still hearing the derisive chants that followed that air ball.

An NBA title is not going to stop James' personal descent. He will continue as a modern Icarus, still falling from the heights he dared to let his wax wings take him to.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 12:39 PM | Comments (1)

Is Sharapova the Next Kournikova?

This morning, Maria Sharapova sits at No. 2 in the world in women's professional tennis. It's a fitting position given her exceptional performance at the Australian Open, making it to the final, and her runner-up finish at the 2011 All England Lawn Tennis Championships.

Not long ago, it seemed her career may be coming quickly to an end. Suffering numerous shoulder injuries in 2008 following her third major title at the 2008 Aussie Open, Maria had hobbled through some of the 2009 season and returned fully in the 2010 season with modest success. At no time, though, did she ever look strong enough to recapture her peak performance.

Flash forward to Wimbledon of 2011. With a little luck in the draw, Sharapova finds herself standing at the door of her fourth major title against a player who had never been in a major final before, who was not as familiar with the grass as was Sharapova, who already had one title on the lawns of the AELTC. It looked like a sure win, another title for Maria.

It was, however, not to be, as Petra Kvitova handily powered her way past Sharapova in what can only be called a surprising upset. Kvitova has since proven her abilities on the WTA tour, but on that day, the title should have gone to Maria. In watching the match, it was obvious that the fiery Sharapova of old was not there. Could it be nerves?

Now to the 2012 Australian Open. Sharapova had withdrawn from the warmup tournament at Brisbane siting an injury, so her dominance in the land down under was clearly no guarantee. Sharapova carried herself well in the early rounds, and with each match, and a little luck, found herself moving quickly through the draw. Then Kvitova again, this time in the semis. Sharapova moved out quickly, and it seemed the confidence she lacked at Wimbledon the summer before was there.

Then, inexplicably, Sharapova started to play as timidly as she had at Wimbledon, and Kvitova tied the match. Digging for a little more, Sharapova pulled out the match with a third-set win. With Kvitova one of the early favorites, and with Victoria Azarenka pulling out the upset of tour veteran Kim Clijsters earlier, it seemed like Sharapova would again claim a major title and solidify her return to the top of women's tennis.

I'm not sure what it was, but Sharapova again displayed what can only be thought of as a game lacking confidence. She was lacking the confidence that a three-time major winner and tour veteran should have. Azarenka joined the ranks of winners of one of the four majors, and Sharapova became a statistic.

In reviewing the loss, it dawned on me that there was another talented Russian who displayed a similar trait at times, Ana Kournikova. The most famous women's player on the planet to never win a major title often displayed moments of shear lack of confidence at the height of her playing. Could it be that tennis' two most beautiful and talented Russians suffered from the same mental flaw?

I have always hoped that Sharapova would be a great champion, and she is. I hope that we have not seen the last of her major victories. I wonder, though, will she still have the confidence to win that last point...

Posted by Tom Kosinski at 11:27 AM | Comments (3)

February 23, 2012

What if Jeremy Lin Wasn't an Asian?

Jeremy Lin is the biggest story in the NBA right now, mostly because of his play, but unfortunately, also because of his race. Lin is a Asian-American, and some athletes, most notably boxer Floyd Mayweather and Dallas Maverick Jason Terry, have openly stated that Lin's heritage has made him a bigger story than he deserves.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, except when that opinion contains an offensive racial slur. That was the case when an ESPN Mobile headline, "Chink in the Armor," hit the Internet ahead of a story about the New York Knicks' loss to the New Orleans Hornets in which Lin had 9 turnovers. The author of the headline was fired, and an ESPN anchor who used the phrase on the air was suspended.

ESPN's actions were politically correct. Furthermore, in keeping with the politically correct movement, the right course of action would be to cease the use of all headlines and phrases referencing Lin's race or heritage. But that wouldn't be any fun, would it?

Doing so would deprive the world of such potential headlines like one that details the life of a player of Asian descent in a sport dominated by African-Americans, "'Charlie' and the Chocolate Factory." Or the tale of Lin's quick rise from unknown to NBA superstar, "Lin's Slope to Success Highly Inclined."

Yes, those headlines are offensive, and quite so. But when something is offensive, must we always go on the defensive? No. In some situations, countering offense with even more offense is more effective.

Lin, and others of Asian heritage, have suffered enough. Duty calls, and that duty is offending other races in an equal manner.

Let's pretend that Lin is not of Asian descent, and, theoretically, has ancestors of other worldwide races. What other offensive headlines could we expect were Lin, say, German, English, Hispanic, or Italian, for example? Would the uproar be the same? You be the judge.

* If Lin were of Mexican descent, then a story of his seamless adaptation to newfound fame would certainly be entitled "Spic and Roll: Lin Taking Fame in Stride."

Or a piece hailing the Hispanic hero's uncanny shooting skills, designated "Nothing But Wet(back): Lin Swishing From Long Range."

* If Lin were Italian, a story describing his emergence as a fan favorite could be headlined "Sis! Goom! Bah!: Fans Love Jeremy Lin."

Or, a story chronicling Lin's unwavering work ethic, honed in his hardscrabble upbringing in Genoa, Italy could regrettably be titled "Do Wop: Lin's Hard Work Pays Off."

Better yet, a story advocating Lin's ability as a pure shooter, headlined "When Jeremy Lin Shoots the Balls, Dago in."

Finally, it would be a crime if a story on Lin's mercurial rise to stardom in New York wasn't entitled "Guinea Vidi Vici: Lin Takes the Big Apple by Storm."

* Let's say Lin is Caucasian, and the Knicks are quite satisfied with his performance. It's a story worthy of the front page, as long as the title is "Honky-Dorry: Knicks Pleased With Acquisition of Lin."

Or a story about New York Knicks revenues increasing because of the sudden spike in tickets sales of fans clamoring to see Lin. Surely it would be entitled "Whitebread and Butter: Knicks Reaping the Benefits of Lin's Popularity."

* Fans of a Jewish Lin would certainly want to wear the same athletic gear as their hero. Comparisons to Michael Jordan would soon follow, and a headline proposing a Nike ad campaign called "Be Like Kike" would not be far behind.

Of course, the above-mentioned Terry would one of many doubters of a Jewish Lin's skills as a player. Luckily, we could read all about it in a piece called "Don't Believe the Hymie: Terry Says Two Weeks Does Not Make a Career."

* Lin as an Irishman? Who wouldn't be a fan of that? An article discussing Lin's quickly-growing fan base? It would be called "Paddy Wagon: Fans Flock to Lin Phenomenon." Lin's subsequent surprising win in the slam dunk contest could affectionately be titled "Irish Spring: Lin Wins Dunk Title."

* If Lin were a Romanian, and Dick Vitale penned an article on a particularly impressive Lin dunk, it would surely be titled "Gypsy-Doo, Dunk-A-Roo: Lin's Aerial Skills Are Spellbinding."

* A German Lin? Indeed. A headline describing a hot-shooting Lin leading the Knicks to a blowout victory? "The Kraut is on: Sizzling Lin Leads Knicks to Blitzkrieg."

* A Lin who hailed from Britain would be the subject of a story chiding the Golden State Warriors and Houston Rockets for waiving him. The title? "Bloke's on You: Warriors, Rockets Regret Releasing Lin."

Or a possible story illustrating the advantages and disadvantages of being a streaky shooter, called "Limey Up, Limey Down: The Hits and Misses of Jeremy Lin."

* Lin's Japanese heritage would be referenced in a story hailing his buzzer-beating three-pointer to shock the Heat called "Nip of Time: Lin's Three-Pointer Falls as Time Expires."

* You can't play in the NBA and not be able to talk a little trash. If Lin was a Canadian, the story would have to be called "Canuck and Jive: Lin Walks the Walk and Talks the Talk."

Or should a Canadian Lin's career fizzle out, leading to a disappointing fall from grace, the headline should read "From Hoser to Poseur: Knicks Bench Lin."

* If Lin were an Inuit, and his fame as an NBA player made him a favorite of NBA groupies, then a lighthearted piece on the situation could be called "Eskimo Pie: Women Throwing Themselves at Jeremy Lin."

* How about a Jeremy Lin from France? "Oui!" Marv Albert would say. And the article describing Lin's fearless manner of play would be dubbed "Feeling Froggy: Lin Takes on All Comers."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 9:11 PM | Comments (0)

Five Aces, Five Falls, One Coach Who Learned the Hard Way

The Washington Nationals say Stephen Strasburg won't be limited in his 2012 starts, but will be limited in his total innings' workload this season. They've clearly learned a lesson or three from Strasburg's almost-lost 2011 following his rookie splash of 2010. They may have learned it in decent part from the wizened gentleman who is only their second pitching coach since they relocated from Montreal. A gentleman who knows only too much about the destruction, actual or potential, of talented young pitchers who might be overworked, overused, overextended, and finally overcooked.

Steve McCatty has been there. Done that. Bought the Billy Martin bar coasters.

We take you back to a Sports Illustrated cover of April 27, 1981. There they are. Resplendent in their beer-league-style Oakland Athletics uniforms. Resembling a second- or third-generation Mustache Gang in their own right. Even behind their playful smiles, even the most loosey-goose of the lot, they look as though one and all are about to gouge their initials into your craniums beneath the visors of your batting helmets. Clockwise from the upper left, they were: Rick Langford, Steve McCatty, Brian Kingman, Mike Norris, and Matt Keough. Right-handers all. Posed in front of clubhouse lockers and behind a bold, red cover headline:

THE AMAZING A'S AND THEIR FIVE ACES

And you thought last year's offseason and preseason Four Aces hype around the Philadelphia Phillies' incoming starting rotation was a bunch of ballyhooey?

Two years later, Oakland's Five Aces began resembling five patients in an orthopedic surgeon's intensive care unit, and Bill James wrote this while composing his 1983 Baseball Abstract: "A year ago, in writing about the Oakland A's, I put forward the thesis that (manager) Billy Martin's handling of his pitching staff was that of a man who did not quite believe in the existence of the future ... All of the pitchers who had [thrown enormous amounts of innings/complete games] for him in the past, I pointed out, had paid a price for it two or three years down the line."

Is that really what happened to Langford, McCatty, Kingman, Norris, and Keough?

By midway in 1984, only McCatty was on the A's major league roster. It wouldn't be long from there — the odd, brief, failed comeback attempt to the contrary — before all five were out of baseball. In the middle of the concurrent hype known as Billyball — the run-and-gun, junkyard-dog baserunning game the former Yankee brought to fruit with the 1980-82 Athletics — did Billy Martin, that least patient of managers, really burn out a starting staff who were reasonably young and likewise a little more than promising?

Let's take it season-by-season:

1980: Martin's first season managing the A's, after being shoved out of New York. Langford led the American League in complete games and innings pitched to go with his 19-12 won-lost record, his 1.60 strikeout-to-walk ratio, his 1.17 walks/hits-to-innings-pitched ratio, and his nifty 3.26 ERA. McCatty was a .500 pitcher (14-14) with a 3.86 ERA, a 1.36 WHIP, and a 1.15 K/BB. Kingman hung up a 1.41 K/BB, a 1.38 WHIP, and a 3.83 ERA, not exactly world-beating. (He also got only 2.87 runs of support to work with per game, on average, which may explain a lot about why he was a 20-game loser that season.) Norris was a 20-game winner in 1980, finishing second in the Cy Young Award voting (three writers left him off their ballots, somehow, ensuring the win for Baltimore's Steve Stone), with a 2.15 K/BB, a 1.05 WHIP, and a 2.53 ERA. Keough was almost as good, a 16-13 W-L taking only a little of the luster off a 2.92 ERA, a 1.25 WHIP, and 20 complete games.

In other words, among the Amazing A's and their Five Aces, only Norris and Keough really did look like aces by their statistics entering 1981. Langford, and McCatty looked like potential aces but serviceable numbers three through five pitchers. Kingman pitched in a lot of hard luck and a lot more of Martin's foolishness, about which more anon.

Thirty years after the season which would hang up their dilemma once and for all, though, the quintet is still remembered as a dominant or at least intimidating staff in a three-season period in which all wasn't exactly how it seemed to promise.

1981: The strike-interrupted and shortened season. The A's ended up in the postseason but got shoved out of the American League Championship Series. (By the Yankees, of all people.) This is what happened to the Five Aces, taken clockwise again by light of the SI cover portrait:

Langford — Shaved his ERA to 2.99, led the American League in complete games (18) for the second year in a row (in 1980, he threw 28 complete games), hiked his K/BB to 1.45, and this in spite of his WHIP swelling a tick to 1.27. He finished 1980-81 with 46 complete games and, at one point, reeled off a stupefying 22 straight complete games.

McCatty — Led the American League in wins (14) and shutouts (4), cut his ERA dramatically enough, to 2.33, ballooned his K/BB to 1.49, shrank his WHIP to 1.08, and finished second in the Cy Young Award voting.

Kingman — Pitched in only 18 games and hung up a 3-6 W-L record with his ERA swelling a tick to 3.93, and though his K/BB improved to 1.63 his WHIP swelled to 1.53. He clashed hard enough with Martin to earn a banishment to the minors before the season ended.

Norris — Saw his ERA swell back up to 3.75 on a 12-9 won-lost record, his WHIP climbed to 1.21, his K/BB shrank to 1.24, and he led the league with 14 wild pitches.

Keough — Shrank his WHIP a tick to 1.21 and finished 10-6 after starting the season 5-1, but his ERA jumped to 3.40 and his K/BB wasn't much different (1.33) than 1980. He'd become notable for a gutsy performance in the final ALCS game against the Yankees, pitching eight and a third and leaving the game with the A's down a mere 1-0.

And the Oakland pitching staff still led the league with 60 games out of the 109 played on the split-season, after leading the league with 94 complete games in 1980.

In other words, if the 1980 Aces had only two (Norris and Keough) whom you could call aces in fact or in potential by their numbers, the 1981 edition had only two — who weren't the same two (this time: Langford and McCatty) — who could have been called aces in fact or aces-potential, according to their statistics. So what happened to the quintet in 1982? This time, let's take them in reverse order:

Keough — Led the American League in losses (18), home runs surrendered (38), saw his WHIP balloon to 1.60 and his K/BB shrink to a staggering 0.74 (he struck out only 75 and walked 101). He also surrendered the most earned runs in the league and finished with a whopping 5.74 ERA.

Norris — His ERA ballooned to 4.76; he had a convenience store W-L record (7-11); his K/BB shrank almost as dramatically as Keough's (to 0.99; he struck out 83 and walked 84).

Kingman — Recalled from the minors, his ERA shot up to 4.48; he went 4-12; his K/BB fell between Keough's and Norris's (0.81); his WHIP went back to 1.55.

McCatty — He managed a winning record (6-3) but his K/BB fell to 0.94 and his WHIP inflated to 1.51, not to mention his ERA jumping up to 3.99.

Langford — His K/BB was even better, at 1.61 … but his WHIP climbed to 1.32, he went 11-16, and his ERA blasted up to 4.21.

With the A's falling to fifth place in the American League West and the surrealistic toll beginning to show in earnest on that once-vaunted pitching staff, the new A's ownership (Walter Haas had bought the team from Charlie Finley) dumped Martin at the end of 1982.

There were plenty enough around the American League who believed Martin, in somewhat typical style, had also made sure enough of his pitchers learned a few subterfuges to turn an apparent group of raw kids and also-rans into a group who seemed to strike trepidation enough into the league's hitters. Or so it was thought. Wherever Martin traveled, seemingly, so traveled his favourite pitching coach, Art Fowler. Fowler, once a late-blossoming and useful relief pitcher for several major league clubs, was reputed to be teaching the wet one to enough pitchers on any staff with which he worked for his entire life as a pitching coach who was often suspected just as powerfully of being Martin's number one drinking buddy.

Some of the evidence? Before Fowler showed up in Oakland, Keough, Langford, McCatty and Norris had a combined 30-53 W-L record with 23 complete games. After Fowler's arrival, those four went 71-48 with 83 complete games. This can be seen as the sign of a coach who spots and knows how to get the best out of his charges. Customarily, it is. But there were loud enough whisperings around the league that Fowler was getting something else out of them: what Thomas Boswell once called "salvation by salivation."

"Gaylord Perry was the one who turned on Billy Martin," Paul Richards — former catcher, manager, general manager, and then a pitching coach for the Texas Rangers — told Boswell in the middle of the Five Aces' actual or alleged run. "Now, everywhere that Martin goes, he takes along Art Fowler, who was a pretty good spitballer himself. There's no doubt that the Oakland staff all had grease on 'em someplace last season."

Well, now. Throwing the spitter is thought to abet elbow and other arm strain. "The strain on a spitballer's arm is exceptional," Richards also told Boswell, "and you're endangering your career. You throw the spitter like a fastball but with a stiff wrist, squeezing the ball out of your fingers like a watermelon seed. Instead of a free-and-easy release, the shock goes back into your shoulder."

If Fowler indeed taught any or all the Five Aces the spitter, and that were blended to their workloads in the Martin-Fowler years, not to mention the breaking balls all five already threw (McCatty's was thought to be the best of their curve balls), then it merely becomes a backstory behind their apparent rise and striking fall within three years of their 1980-81 performances:

Langford — Pitched in pain, perhaps stubbornly ("He's his own worst enemy," McCatty would say of him), throughout 1982. He spent just about all of 1983 on the disabled list and underwent elbow surgery that August. By age 30 he'd be finished as a starter; he'd hang around until 34, somehow, as a somewhat marginal relief pitcher.

McCatty — Started to suffer shoulder trouble in 1982, pitched with it as far as 1984, by which time he was the only one of the Five Aces to still be in the majors when SI caught up to him and them that season.

Kingman — His 1980 ERA of 3.84 ERA balanced to that of 20-game winner Dennis Leonard . He avoided arm trouble, perhaps the only one of the Five to do so. But his competitiveness and his distaste for martinet-like authority figures collided with Martin's stubbornness, Martin leaving him in games when he was being murdered on the mound. He ended up banished to the minors, traded, and out of baseball at age 29.

Norris — His decline was punctuated by shoulder surgery following 1983, after he'd spent 1981 and 1982 pitching through pain. There were those who believed, however, that he was affected at least as much by too much taste for the high life and, in time, an addiction to cocaine. (He was one of the players to testify at the infamous Pittsburgh drug trials of 1985.) He may also have been affected by throwing a screwball that interfered with his mechanics and may have contributed to his shoulder trouble. He was gone by age 28, never mind a brief and failed comeback try at 35.

Keough — The son of one-time major league utility player Marty and nephew of one-time Oakland outfielder Joe, Keough was actually named the American League's Comeback Player of the Year for 1980. His fate may have been sealed when he dinged his shoulder as he slipped off a mound during a 1981 game against the Orioles. In early 1983, Keough was traded to the Yankees for a pair of minor league players and finished the year 5-7 with a 5.33 ERA. He sat out 1984 recuperating from a rotator cuff inflammation, then played in the National League two more seasons, mostly as a relief pitcher of little enough note.

What did the Five Aces have to say about their actual or alleged Martinizing when Sports Illustrated caught up to them in 1984?

Langford — "I didn't feel overworked under Billy. I wasn't being abused. I was doing what I enjoyed doing—pitching as long and as hard as I could. I did what I wanted to do, and I felt great pitching all those innings and all those complete games. We (pitchers) pushed each other … Not one of us thought he was pitching too much … Unfortunately, we don't have lights on our bodies to tell us when to stop. I could've been a lot smarter … Now I know I should have paid more attention to the warning signals. But I'd never had an injury before so bad that I couldn't throw a baseball. This was the first time I couldn't answer the bell. I just couldn't accept that. But when I realized I couldn't turn a doorknob to get out of the house, I knew I was in trouble."

McCatty — "Billy didn't ruin our arms. Our own competitiveness did it. We wouldn't take ourselves out. I know what I should have done when my arm started hurting. 'Tomorrow it'll be fine,' I'd say. So I paid the price. 1982 and 1983 were the most miserable years I've ever been a part of. I pitched when it felt like my arm was going to come right out of the socket … I still don't know why I got the soreness, but I was really the first to go down. Then it was like dominoes … The reason we stayed in so long was that we were throwing well and Billy didn't have much confidence in the bullpen … Billy called most of our pitches. We'd always have to look in the dugout for the sign. It became an involuntary action ... The worst of it is, with the pitching staff the critics were right. We did go down. But they were right for all the wrong reasons. I know that with me I was just too dumb to say, 'Hey, I've got pain. Better rest me.'"

Kingman — "Billy affected us all. He helped some of us. Norris had that tremendous ability, so Billy let him do his crazy things. Rick would succeed anywhere under any conditions. Billy really liked Matt. I've often thought he ruined my career, but I know he didn't try to. Even if he hated someone, if they could win for him, he'd stick with them. The thing is, Billy likes to yell when he loses and I was losing the most and I don't like to be yelled at. Losing 20 for Billy makes a season twice as long ... I think Billy thought I hated his guts and he was probably right. Actually, I've gone the whole route from hating him to indifference to regarding it as a great experience ... From day one, we were motivated by fear. Billy wasn't just a manager. He was a tyrant. Nobody was sure of his job. Anybody could be replaced. It seemed as if your career depended on every play ... Billy called most of my pitches and that would add about 20 minutes to the game — all that looking in the dugout ... He had this rule that if I ever got to 2-0 on a hitter, I couldn't throw the curve ball. I'd obey that rule, throw a fastball, and somebody would hit it out. The next day in the paper, Billy is calling me an idiot."

Norris — "Before Billy, I had never before been able to pitch in abundance. I welcomed the chance ecstatically ... I can remember the look on Billy's face when he'd come out to the mound. He'd want to say something like, 'Hey, guy, I want you to come out,' but the look said, 'Please don't.' He made you feel as if you had feminine tendencies if you wanted to come out. He instilled confidence in you ... Pitching itself is an unnatural act, and the screwball is an unnatural pitch. I fell in love with that pitch. I could throw it hard ... If I threw 120 pitches in a game, 75 of them were screwballs. That's hard on the arm, and as my arm got weaker, I lost velocity ... Without velocity, (my screwball) wouldn't sink. It just stayed on the same plane and became hittable."

Keough — "Ballplayers are never the best judges of what's wrong with them. We were all such good athletes that we thought we could always go nine. Billy never failed to ask us how we felt. He would always say there was no room for heroes. He just wanted you to tell the truth. But we had such egos. We felt if it's just a soreness maybe we're better at 75 percent than the others would be at 100. We have to share the blame for what happened to us. I know I'm sick and tired of hearing about Billy Burnout. Billy and Art took an obscure ball club and taught it how to win. How could I object to that? We never pitched any more than pitchers did on other competitive teams, anyway. I completed 20 games in '80, but I only pitched 250 innings. There are too many intangibles involved to place the blame on any one person."

What to say to sum it up? Perhaps the thing most proper to say is that a drink of five stubborn pitchers, with an even more stubborn manager as the straw to stir that drink, equals a potion that feels great going down but leaves you with stomach trouble when the flavor is gone.

Billy Martin — who may have been the best manager of his time for the game you had to win yesterday, and may have been one of the worst managers of his time (or any time) for the team that needs to be built to win longer term, which may be the most salient reason why he hasn't been elected to the Hall of Fame as his partisans insist he should be — stirred such a potion with the Oakland starting rotation of 1980-82.

Those Athletics teams went from winners to World Series would-bes to fifth-place flameouts in a space of three seasons of Billyball. It cost Martin and Fowler their jobs, and it turned five talented if not always consistent among them pitchers into has-beens before they reached the age past which it was once said nobody should be trusted.

Rick Langford has been the Toronto Blue Jays's bullpen coach since 2010, a return engagement since he'd been the Jays' pitching coach in 2000 before moving to spend a long term in that job for the Syracuse SkyChiefs.

Brian Kingman has made something of an afterlife by way of his having been, for long enough, baseball's last known 20-game loser. When Detroit's Mike Maroth turned the dubious trick in 2003 (his second major league season), and Baltimore's Jeremy Guthrie threatened to do it twice in a three-season span (he never quite got there either time), there Kingman would be, having been sought out for his observations and having developed an engaging sense of humor about it. Otherwise, Kingman spends his time working for a Phoenix, Arizona distribution company and coaching baseball at a private high school.

Mike Norris, who once had to be told by Bob Gibson that he'd embarrassed himself by throwing only two inside pitches all game long, overcame his cocaine addiction and today works with Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities, helping teach inner-city youth the game and its pitfalls.

Matt Keough may have the saddest baseball afterlife of the Five. His lawyer has said he's never been the same man after taking a hard foul off his head, while making an aborted comeback attempt with the 1992 California Angels. Once a special assistant in the A's front office after his playing days ended, Keough has since battled alcoholism, spent time in prison for drunk driving, and been divorced from his wife, one-time Playboy Jeane Tomasino, with whom he appeared on television's The Real Housewives of Orange County. One of his three children, Shane, played in the Oakland farm system before bouncing around the minors and being released in 2010; had he made the majors, he would have been the Show's twelfth third-generation player.

McCatty, meanwhile, is looking forward to trying to keep his pitchers healthy, especially Strasburg and Zimmerman now that they've recovered their health. Not to mention getting veteran Edwin Jackson (signed two weeks earlier) to fix a hitch that had him tipping his pitches; or, trying to help John Lannan sort his situation out, after the Jackson signing left Lannan the potential odd man out; or, helping manager Davey Johnson decide whom, between Tom Gorzelanny and Ross Detweiler, will make the Nats' rotation or go to the pen.

It's probably a lot simpler for McCatty than trying to figure out how he and his fellow Five Aces went from aces to anguish in what must now seem like a midsummer's nightmare.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 1:21 PM | Comments (0)

February 22, 2012

Best Wide Receivers Not in the HOF: 1980s

Who is the best wide receiver eligible for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, but not yet enshrined? When football fans cry "snub", there's a good chance they're talking about a wide receiver. For years, it was Lynn Swann or Art Monk. Now, it's guys like Tim Brown and Sterling Sharpe. Players at the other stat positions — quarterbacks and running backs — are elected to the pro football HOF with much higher frequency than wideouts.

For this project, we'll examine in depth 25 eligible wide receivers with strong backing for the Hall of Fame: Cliff Branch, Tim Brown, Harold Carmichael, Cris Carter, Wes Chandler, Gary Clark, Henry Ellard, Irving Fryar, Charley Hennigan, Harlon Hill, Billy Howton, Harold Jackson, Herman Moore, Stanley Morgan, Drew Pearson, Art Powell, Andre Reed, Andre Rison, Sterling Sharpe, Del Shofner, Jimmy Smith, Mac Speedie, Hugh Taylor, Otis Taylor, and Billy Wilson. I believe only about five of those players deserve induction, but there's a case to be made for all of them.

It's difficult to compare players across eras at any position, and this is particularly true in the passing game, because the rules and statistics have changed so much. Today's wide receivers play 16-game schedules. They can't be bumped more than five yards downfield. Their quarterbacks are protected in ways Y.A. Tittle and Roger Staubach never dreamed of. They play in high-efficiency pass-oriented offenses, as opposed to the exciting but reckless bomb-it-down-the-field passing games of the past, when running was a way of life and throwing a sneaky change of pace or a mark of desperation. But we can certainly compare these players to their peers. Here's my list of 25, ranked by the number of times they were among the top 10 in their league in receiving yards:

Seven: Powell
Five: Brown, Carter, Clark, Jackson, Pearson, Shofner, Smith, Speedie, Wilson
Four: Branch, Ellard, Fryar, Hennigan, Howton, Moore, Sharpe, Otis Taylor
Three: Chandler, Hill, Morgan, Reed, Rison, Hugh Taylor
Two: Carmichael

To keep the statistics from skewing, I used top-five rankings (instead of top-10) for seasons before 1970, when the leagues were 8-16 teams rather than 26-32. This affected Hennigan, Howton, Speedie, Hugh Taylor, and Wilson, once each. The two who stand out on the list, obviously, are Powell and Carmichael. But let's review each player's résumé, in alphabetical order. We continue this week with receivers of the 1980s and early 1990s. If you're here for another era, check out our other articles in this series:

Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1990s (Brown, Carter, Fryar, Moore, Rison, Smith)
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1970s (Branch, Carmichael, Jackson, Pearson)
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1960s (Hennigan, Powell, Shofner, Otis Taylor)
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1950s (Hill, Howton, Speedie, Hugh Taylor, Wilson)

Wes Chandler
1978-88, New Orleans Saints, San Diego Chargers, San Francisco 49ers
559 receptions, 8,966 yards, 56 TD

Wes Chandler is not often discussed as a Hall of Fame candidate. He did not have a long career, his best season was shortened by the 1982 strike, and his numbers are frequently dismissed as a by-product of the Air Coryell offense. In his prime, though, Chandler's stats are staggering. He merits HOF consideration based on quality, not quantity.

People forget that Chandler was a 1,000-yard receiver with the Saints, their only one between 1970 and 1987. He broke 1,000 again in 1981, his first year with San Diego, and then came 1982. In a nine-game season, Chandler finished with 49 receptions for 1,032 yards and 9 TDs. Projected to 16 games, he was on pace for 87 catches, 1,835 yards, and 16 touchdowns. That would be the second-best yardage mark in history, trailing only Jerry Rice (1,848) in 1995 — but '95 was the greatest season in NFL history for receivers, and Rice didn't lead the league in receptions or touchdowns. Twenty-three receivers had 1,000 yards that season, and Rice led second-place Isaac Bruce by only 67 yards. In 1982, Chandler led the league by over 200 yards. He averaged 129 receiving yards per game; only two other players even averaged 80, and one of them, Chandler's teammate Kellen Winslow, was at 80.1. I hate to say this about a strike year, but it's probably the most remarkable season by any receiver in the 1980s, including Rice.

Chandler was a good player for several years afterward, though of course he never performed at the same level again. He made two more Pro Bowls, for a total of four, but '82 was his only All-Pro year. He suffers most by comparison with his teammates, especially Winslow. All the Charger receivers put up big numbers in the early '80s, and Chandler's dominance faded with the team's offense.

Gary Clark
1985-95, Washington Redskins, Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals, Miami Dolphins
699 receptions, 10,856 yards, 65 TD

There's a particular breed of stats guys who love Gary Clark, while most fans remember him as a guy who had a few good years playing across from Art Monk. Let's start with the stats. Clark led Washington in receiving yardage six times, including the 1987 and 1991 Super Bowl seasons, and was the leading receiver in Super Bowl XXVI, with 7 catches for 114 yards and a score. He made four Pro Bowls and three All-Pro teams, including a first-team selection in '87.

Clark played well for the USFL's Jacksonville Bulls in 1984, and made an immediate impact in Washington when the rival league folded. Clark was the first player in NFL history to catch at least 50 passes in each of his first 10 NFL seasons, and as of 2012 is still one of only three to accomplish the feat (Marvin Harrison, Torry Holt). For years, Monk was passed over in HOF voting partially because Giants players told the New York sportswriters that they were afraid of Clark, not Monk. Their lack of respect for Monk may explain why he caught 900 passes, but Clark was the deep threat and the touchdown guy — the one who would really make you look bad. Monk kept the chains moving, and that helps the team, but Clark could burn you deep and embarrass you. Undersized at 5'9" and 175 lbs., Clark nonetheless was also a relentless downfield blocker.

I've always thought it's a little unfair that we tend to judge players by what they did in a given decade. Clark's career split basically down the middle between the '80s and '90s, so that looking at either decade individually, he's not really a standout. Some of the other players in this study, like Henry Ellard and Andre Reed, have the same problem. But if you look at the 10 seasons from 1985-94, Clark probably has the best numbers this side of Jerry Rice:

Clark isn't usually regarded as a serious HOF candidate, because he only played for 11 seasons and doesn't have the big career numbers. Ellard and Reed played 16 seasons each, Irving Fryar 17. Obviously we shouldn't ignore that, but when they were in their athletic primes, Clark was perhaps the one who stood out most. Playing with a host of mostly mediocre quarterbacks (Jay Schroeder, Doug Williams, Mark Rypien, Steve Beuerlein), Clark posted five 1,000-yard seasons and is distinguished by truly great years in 1987 — when he didn't post huge stats because of the strike, but gained over 1,000 yards in just 12 games — and 1991, when he had more yards than Rice and more touchdowns than Michael Irvin.

Fifteen of the 21 wide receivers already in Canton played with a Hall of Fame quarterback. Clark had a cup of coffee with Dan Marino in 1995, but played almost his whole career with average QBs. The knocks on Clark are his short career, and the spotlight shared with Art Monk and Ricky Sanders. Was Clark truly a great player, or was he just on a good team, in the right system, with defenses concentrating on the Hall of Famer on the other side of the formation? Is it more fair to reward a player for sustained production when he was past his prime, or to judge receivers mostly based on how good they were at their best?

Henry Ellard
1983-98, Los Angeles Rams, Washington Redskins, New England Patriots
814 receptions, 13,777 yards, 65 TD

When he retired, I figured Ellard was a cinch for Canton. He was third all-time in receiving yards, tied with Lance Alworth and Michael Irvin for third all-time in 1,000-yard seasons (7). He had three seasons of over 1,300 yards, plus he was a superb punt returner: 11.3 average, 4 TDs, made the Pro Bowl as a returner in 1984. But receiving statistics have exploded since then, Andre Reed has emerged as the more celebrated receiver of the era, and Ellard has received very little support from the Hall of Fame voters, never even reaching the semi-finalist stage, the group of 25.

The case against Ellard, I suppose, is similar to that against Tim Brown: he was very good rather than extraordinary. Ellard made only three Pro Bowls and two All-Pro teams, one of them as a returner. However, Ellard was not chosen to the Pro Bowl in 1990, when he was second not just in the NFC, but in the NFL, in receiving yards (1,294). The same thing happened in 1994, when Ellard's 1,397 yards ranked 2nd in the league, and he was passed over. Personally, I believe reaching 1,000 yards with Heath Shuler as your quarterback deserves a statue in your honor, to say nothing of almost 1,400, but evidently the voters weren't impressed.

Ellard may be tough to evaluate partly because he was sort of a unique receiver: a deep threat who caught a ton of passes. There are 24 players with at least 800 career receptions. Among those 24, Ellard has the highest average yards per reception — by almost a full yard. He's 0.95 ahead of Steve Largent, 1.35 ahead of Randy Moss, 1.90 in front of Irving Fryar, and better than two yards ahead of anyone else. James Lofton, who caught 764 passes and had an even higher average than Ellard, is really the only comparable player.

Altogether, Ellard was top-five in the NFL in receiving yards four times. Other players with four top-5 seasons since the merger: Jerry Rice (11), Randy Moss (7), James Lofton and Jimmy Smith (5 each), Tim Brown, Isaac Bruce, Gary Clark, Marvin Harrison, Torry Holt, Michael Irvin, Steve Largent, Sterling Sharpe, Reggie Wayne. Most of that list is Hall of Famers or future Hall of Famers, the exceptions mainly players with relatively brief careers. Ellard didn't have a brief career — he played 16 seasons. He actually ranks 9th all-time in games played by a wide receiver. At various times he led the NFL in receiving yards (1988), yards per reception (1996), punt return average (1983), and punt return TDs (1983 and 1984).

Stanley Morgan
1977-90, New England Patriots, Indianapolis Colts
557 receptions, 10,716 yards, 72 TD

Morgan was the seventh player to reach 10,000 career receiving yards. That milestone has now been met 36 times (most recently by Steve Smith and Donald Driver), but it used to be a pretty big deal. Seldom among the league leaders in receptions, Morgan was a speed demon who three times led the NFL in yards per reception. He is the only player in history with at least 500 receptions to average more than 19 yards per catch, and this distinction will probably stand forever. Morgan was chosen to four Pro Bowls and two second-team All-Pro berths. His 38 career 100-yard receiving games were the 4th-most in history through 1987, trailing only Don Maynard, Lance Alworth, and Steve Largent.

Morgan, whose rookie year was 1977, played in essentially the same era as Largent, James Lofton, Wes Chandler, Roy Green, Drew Hill, and perhaps Art Monk (1980) or John Stallworth (1974). Morgan's statistics fit basically in the middle of the group:

What Morgan does not have, that most of the others do, are big seasons. He gained the 2nd-most receiving yardage in the NFL in 1986, apart from that never ranked higher than 9th. All the others have multiple seasons in the top five. Judged by his career numbers, Morgan has a borderline Hall of Fame case. Judged by how good he was at his best, and the length of his prime, his case is considerably weaker. He could dazzle you at any moment, but wasn't nearly as consistent as most of his peers. Do you prefer a player who is occasionally spectacular, or dependably productive?

Andre Reed
1985-2000, Buffalo Bills, Washington Redskins
951 receptions, 13,198 yards, 87 TD

How many great receivers have ended their careers in Washington? Several outstanding receivers spent most or all of their careers with Washington, but there's also Irving Fryar and Ellard and Reed, plus Keenan McCardell and Joey Galloway. It's like Florida for wide receivers.

You can sum up Andre Reed's career with two stats: he made seven Pro Bowls and was never first-team All-Pro. This is a player who was always good but seldom great. He never led the league in any statistic, and in his best season ranked 5th in the NFL in receiving yardage. Reed ranks 2nd in Super Bowl history in receptions (27) and third in receiving yards (323), but never won a championship.

This theme — always a bridesmaid, never a bride — to me doesn't fit a Hall of Famer. Reed was a very good player for a very long time, but isn't a Hall of Famer exceptional? In 1999, Reed passed Art Monk for the 2nd-most receptions in NFL history. But Reed himself was passed the very next year (by Cris Carter), then by Tim Brown, and now he's 10th, probably 12th soon. Derrick Mason only needs eight more catches to tie him, and Reggie Wayne (862) could pass them both in 2012.

Reed had four 1,000-yard receiving seasons, and he might have had five if not for the 1987 strike (he gained 752 yards in 12 games). But he was just the 25th player with four 1,000-yard seasons, and many of his contemporaries had as many or more. Brian Blades had four 1,000-yard seasons. Mark Clayton and Anthony Miller had five each. Henry Ellard reached 1,000 seven times. Today, Reed is one of 61 players with at least four 1,000-yard receiving seasons. Even his seven Pro Bowls are as much a reflection of the AFC's weakness as anything. Who was he beating out? Haywood Jeffires, Anthony Miller, and Al Toon? The competition (Clark, Ellard, Irvin, Rice, Rison, Sharpe) was all in the NFC.

Let's be honest about the quality of competition in the AFC. The AFC won three Super Bowls during Reed's 16-year career, and in his best season of those, Reed ranked 26th in the NFL in receiving yardage, even lower in receptions and TDs. While his peers in the NFC were going up against tough defenses, Reed feasted on the weak AFC East. During Buffalo's Super Bowl seasons, the Colts, Jets, and Patriots went a combined 61-131 (.318). The Dolphins were pretty good, but mostly because of Dan Marino, not a strong defense. We don't treat NCAA statistics from the SEC and the WAC equally, and from 1985-96, we shouldn't treat the NFC and AFC equally, either.

Reed's Bills were four times the best team in the AFC. Where would they have ranked in the NFC, competing with the 49ers, Dallas, Washington, the Phil Simms Giants, the Brett Favre Packers, the Mike Ditka Bears? Buffalo's dominance was at least partly an illusion created by lack of competition. To some extent, that has to color our assessment of Andre Reed, too. He was beating up on WAC defenders, and we're comparing him to guys who played in the SEC. It's not the same thing.

Even out of context, Reed's stats are more consistent than outstanding. Average receiving yardage in ___ best seasons:

* Sharpe only played seven seasons.
** Clark and Clayton played 11 seasons each.

Looking at each player's peak, Reed is wholly unremarkable. The more seasons you include, the more Reed's consistency elevates him. How you feel about Reed's Hall of Fame qualifications probably depends on whether you care more about how good a player was at his best, or how long he remained effective. Are you more interested in a player's 12th-, 13th-, and 14th-best seasons, or how outstanding he was in his prime and how many years he was among the very best?

Obviously, Reed was a great player. He did have some superb seasons, and he made a lot of terrific plays. I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm trying to imply otherwise, or insult one of the finest receivers of his generation. Reed was even a good runner, gained more rushing yards (500) than any career WR except Rice. But it seems to me that Reed's long career and his visibility on a high-powered offense that appeared in four Super Bowls have led him to receive more Hall of Fame support than other, equally worthy players.

The 1990s Bills already have more Hall of Famers (5) than any of the teams that beat them in the Super Bowl. Buffalo obviously had a lot of talent in those years, but did it really have more Hall of Fame-caliber personnel than the Giants (2), Washington (4), and Dallas (3)? How would you feel about Reed getting elected and the Bills having twice as many HOFers as the Cowboy teams that embarrassed them in two Super Bowls?

Sterling Sharpe
1988-94, Green Bay Packers
595 receptions, 8,134 yards, 65 TD

Sharpe never missed a game in his seven-year career, but a serious neck injury in 1994 forced him to end a career that almost certainly would have led to Canton. In just seven seasons, Sharpe led the NFL in receptions three times, in receiving TDs twice, and in receiving yardage once. He twice set the record for most receptions in a season, 108 in 1993 and 112 the next year. In his final season, Sharpe caught 94 passes for 1,119 yards and 18 touchdowns. He retired at age 29.

Andre Reed and Sharpe basically have the opposite problem getting into the Hall of Fame. Reed wasn't as exceptional in his prime, but he played at a high level for a very long time, whereas Sharpe was a superstar in a very short career. For three or four years, Sharpe was one of the best wide receivers we'd ever seen. He made five Pro Bowls and was first-team All-Pro three times. Despite his much shorter career, Sharpe had more 1,000-yard receiving seasons (5) than Reed (4), more years with double-digit TDs (4-1), more times leading the league in a major statistic (6-0), more 100-catch seasons (2-0), more 90-catch seasons (4-1), more of almost everything that shows an extremely high level of play.

But when you look at the many great receivers of this era, how do you take someone who only played seven seasons ahead of those who played 11, 12, 16, 17 seasons? Tim Brown and Michael Irvin began their careers the same year as Sharpe. In his 8th-best season, Brown gained 1,104 yards, Irvin 962. Cris Carter had 1,011, Henry Ellard 945, Gary Clark 892, Reed 880 — those players provided value to their teams years after the hardest part of Sharpe's job was finding a tie to match his suit.

It's useful to me, in thinking about these issues, to break them down by era. Below, I've organized HOF receivers by the decade in which they most established their greatness.

1945-54: Tom Fears, Elroy Hirsch, Dante Lavelli, Pete Pihos
1950-59: n/a
1955-64: Raymond Berry, Tommy McDonald, Bobby Mitchell
1960-69: Lance Alworth, Don Maynard
1965-74: Fred Biletnikoff, Bob Hayes, Charley Taylor, Paul Warfield
1970-79: n/a
1975-84: Charlie Joiner, Steve Largent, John Stallworth, Lynn Swann
1980-89: James Lofton, Art Monk
1985-94: Jerry Rice
1990-99: Michael Irvin

Some of those assignments are close calls. Monk, for instance, played until 1995 and was one of the best receivers of the decade from 1985-94. Rice was the premier receiver of the 1990s, and could easily fit into that block instead. Let's break this down a little more, looking at both the Hall of Famers and the contenders we've examined.

Morgan is hard to compare to the other players on this list, because he was such a different type of receiver, different than Monk in particular. Morgan was a down-the-field terror who averaged 19.2 yards per reception and gained at least 100 receiving yards in a game 38 times, the only player in history to average more than 19 yards per catch on at least 500 receptions. Monk was a big, strong receiver who would go over the middle, the premier possession receiver of his generation and one of the finest blockers ever at his position. Lofton was similar to Morgan, but clearly out of his league. Not very many players look good compared to James Lofton.

Chandler is a player you evaluate by his prime more than by his career numbers, who only had 10 seasons with any kind of production but was truly outstanding at his peak. It's certainly appropriate to put Chandler's career in the context of the crazy stats posted by all the Air Coryell receivers, but three of Chandler's five best seasons were spent at least partially with the Saints, and his performance in 1982 can't be explained just by a pass-oriented offense and a Hall of Fame quarterback.

In my mind, Hall of Fame receivers are standouts, the very best of their generation. Morgan and Chandler were terrific players, but sharing the spotlight with contemporaries like Largent, Lofton, and Monk, I'm just not sure they meet that standard. Stats again, looking at the next generation of great WRs:

If all you care about is career stats, you'd probably rank this group: Rice, Reed, Ellard, Clark, Sharpe. If you ranked them by peak performance, you might go: Rice, Sharpe, Clark, Ellard, Reed. Opposite order, other than Rice. Do you prefer sustained productivity or a brilliant prime? Let's look at things another way...

If Jerry Rice Didn't Exist

Jerry Rice, like Don Hutson 50 years before, was so exceptional that he completely skews our idea of what mere humans can accomplish. How might we view these players differently if Rice had never laced 'em up? Without assuming anything drastic, like the 49ers drafting Reed, or Sharpe staying healthy...

1987

Gary Clark would have led all participants in the players' strike in receiving yards. J.T. Smith, who faced replacement players for three weeks while the rest of the league was on strike, still outgained Clark by 51 yards.

1989

Sterling Sharpe would have led the league in every major receiving category. He led in receptions anyway, but finished 2nd to Rice in yards and TDs. Andre Reed probably would have been First-Team All-Pro, and Henry Ellard might have been Second-Team. Clark probably would have made the Pro Bowl.

1990

Ellard would have led the NFL in receiving yards. Clark, Ellard, Reed, or Sharpe probably would have been First-Team All-Pro, and one of the others Second-Team All-Pro. Ellard probably would have made the Pro Bowl. Ellard would have become the first player since Lance Alworth to go over 4,000 receiving yards in a three-year period, and the only one ever to gain 1,250 yards in three consecutive seasons. He actually did this anyway, but his accomplishment was simultaneous with Rice, who did the same thing over the same three years.

1992

Clark might have made the Pro Bowl.

1994

Ellard would have led the NFL in receiving yards. Sharpe would have tied the single-season record for receiving touchdowns. Ellard, Reed, or Sharpe probably would have been Second-Team All-Pro, and Ellard probably would have made the Pro Bowl.

1996

Ellard would have become 2nd all-time in receiving yards, behind only James Lofton.

1999

Andre Reed would have become the NFL's all-time receptions leader.

I believe the players this most radically changes our views of are Ellard and Sharpe. Clark would have been a lot more prominent among the league leaders, probably would have made another Pro Bowl or two, and might have gotten the attention for his best seasons that instead was showered on Rice. Reed would have briefly held the all-time receptions record, and probably gotten at some point the All-Pro recognition that otherwise eluded him. But I imagine Ellard and Sharpe in particular would have been viewed much differently in Rice's absence.

Ellard would be, along with Raymond Berry, the only Modern Era players ever to lead the NFL in receiving yards three times. Heck, add Don Hutson in the early 20th century and Lance Alworth leading the AFL three times — that doesn't diminish anything. Alworth, Berry, Hutson, and Ellard. That's maybe the three best (non-Rice) receivers in history, and Ellard. He likely would have made several more Pro Bowls, and his climb up the record boards would have gotten more attention.

As much as anything, the difference between Ellard in his best seasons and the rest of the league becomes a lot more apparent when Rice isn't there to look just as good. Now in 1988, Ellard gains 1,414 yards and second place is Eddie Brown at 1,273. Ellard's all by himself. Two years later, Ellard leads the league with 1,294, way ahead of runner-up Andre Rison (1,208). That 1,294, leading the league by almost 100 yards, is perceived totally differently than when Rice gains 1,502 and Ellard is a distant second. You don't have to change anything Ellard does, but remove Rice from the picture and he emerges as a truly exceptional player.

This is equally true for Sharpe. With no Jerry Rice, who do fans think of as the greatest receiver in the NFL? Probably Sharpe. In 1989, he leads the league in every major receiving category. In 1992, he does again, the only player since Hutson to do so more than once. That same year, he breaks the single-season receptions record. In '93, he breaks his own record, extending the mark to 112. In his final season, he becomes the first player in history with three 90-reception seasons and ties the single-season record for receiving TDs. Sounds almost like Rice, doesn't it?

Without Jerry Rice, Sterling Sharpe probably takes over a similar reputation, the guy who's just on another level. Michael Irvin and Sharpe came into the league the same year, 1988. When Sharpe retired, he led Irvin in receptions (by 179), yards (1,199), and TDs (16), all by a huge margin. He simply was the most dominant receiver of his era ... except that Jerry Rice did exist, and no one else looks quite as good by comparison, even when you think you're adjusting your expectations. Here's how I rank the best non-HOF receivers of the '80s and early '90s, and this was not easy:

1. Henry Ellard — Seven 1,000-yard seasons, three times first or second in NFL in receiving yardage, excellent punt returner.
HOF Qualifications: GOOD. He should probably be in.

2. Sterling Sharpe — Forced to retire in his 20s, but led the NFL in a major statistic six times and broke the single-season reception record.
HOF Qualifications: FAIR. He probably doesn't need to be in.

3. Andre Reed — Four Super Bowl appearances, seven Pro Bowls, fourteen 500-yard seasons.
HOF Qualifications: FAIR. He probably doesn't need to be in.

4. Gary Clark — Two-time Super Bowl champion, five 1,000-yard seasons, playmaker who created opportunities underneath for Art Monk.
HOF Qualifications: FAIR. He probably doesn't need to be in.

I changed the order for Clark, Reed, and Sharpe several times, using almost every combination. They're very, very close, and in my mind they're all borderline candidates.

5. Stanley Morgan — Unique deep threat who only had one really outstanding season but was a threat to score on every play.
HOF Qualifications: POOR. He probably shouldn't be in. But he was a heck of a player.

6. Wes Chandler — Great receiver with two teams, historic season in 1982 was cut short by strike.
HOF Qualifications: POOR. He probably shouldn't be in. But again, heck of a player.

***

Read the other articles in this series:

Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1990s
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1970s
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1960s
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1950s

Posted by Brad Oremland at 2:24 PM | Comments (0)

February 21, 2012

Colossal 'Cats

Conventional wisdom says that 2012 is a year in which no one team will be known as a great team in the annals of college basketball history. Before the season, North Carolina was potentially one team that could go down as an all-time great club, returning all five starters from an Elite Eight team and bringing in a strong recruiting class. The Tar Heels, while still 23-4 and tied for first in the ACC at 10-2, have had their urgency and toughness questioned. Losing defensive stopper Dexter Strickland for the year with an ACL tear has hurt, as well.

The other team that resided at the top of most preseason rankings was Kentucky. No one can possibly make any similar charges about the heart the Wildcats show in 2011-12. Despite having a team consisting almost solely of freshmen and sophomores, Kentucky has succeeded expectations. If any team is to go down in history as having a season for the ages, it will be the Wildcats.

The memorable teams fans remember decades down the road are usually ones like 1996's Wildcats or 2005's Tar Heels. Those teams had many returning pieces from the previous year, and were known as elite from the beginning of the season. Kentucky would seemingly be disqualified from this list solely on the basis of its players not being fully known commodities by casual fans before the season.

However, Kentucky's playing group is indicative of a new status quo, where freshmen cannot only be the most talented players on the court, but tenacious, mature leaders. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist embodies those traits for Kentucky.

The other super freshman that leads the Wildcats is Anthony Davis, who barring injury or collapse, will be the first pick in an NBA draft many observers consider extraordinarily deep. One national writer summed up Davis' game beautifully, saying that he is more fun to watch on offense than defense.

College basketball has seen its fair share of extraordinary shot blockers. Alonzo Mourning, Hasheem Thabeet, Emeka Okafor, and David Robinson come to mind. But Davis single-handedly takes away the lane in a way that I can't ever remember seeing. For the season, Davis blocks 15.1% of opposing teams' two-pointers and contests or effects many others. His once maligned offensive game has improved over the course of the season, but he's not a back-to-the-basket post player. Davis gets his points regardless, 13.9 per game this season on a little more than 8 shot attempts per contest.

As a team, Kentucky is more known for defense than offense, but its ability to score may actually be more impressive. According to Ken Pomeroy's statistics, Kentucky scores approximately 1.21 points per possession (the national average typically hovers around 1), while giving up 0.86 per trip. In conference play, Kentucky is only slightly less stellar, scoring 1.19 PPP while allowing 0.92. Outscoring opponents in conference play by over a quarter-point per possession after 12 league games is typically reserved for top mid-majors playing a bunch of sub-200 RPI teams in their respective conferences. As a comparison, Ohio State has the second best efficiency margin in a major conference this season at +0.19 points per possession.

Here is a list of the in-conference efficiency margins of the national champions since 2003, the first year in which possession-based game data is available. When you consider that there are over 1,000 possessions in a 16-game conference season, the decimals below can add up to substantial point differentials.

Kentucky is currently at +0.27. In other words, the Wildcats are more dominant in conference play than any of the last nine national champions.

If John Calipari's club can go undefeated in the SEC, it will mark the first time that a team has gone undefeated in a BCS league since Kansas in 2003. Skeptics will point to the fact the SEC does not have a litany of good teams, and they would be right. Florida and Vanderbilt are the only teams in the conference likely to be above an 8-seed on Selection Sunday. Mississippi State has talent to keep up with Kentucky, but often can't get out of its own way, as evidenced by a weekend loss at Auburn. Nonetheless, teams in sub-par major conferences like recent editions of the Pac-10/12 haven't put up records or numbers anywhere close to Kentucky's.

As if Kentucky needed any more signs of encouragement, freshman point guard Marquis Teague has started to play at a higher level. Teague was just as highly regarded coming out of high school as Davis and Kidd-Gilchrist, but the Indianapolis native has struggled at times with turnovers and his shot. He tends to run the offense now as opposed to creating for himself.

At this point in the season, it makes sense to call Kentucky a near-prohibitive favorite for the national championship. Syracuse, who has one loss like Kentucky, struggles on the defensive glass to an alarming degree. Missouri is at a decided size disadvantage against the bigger teams, and has shown some defensive warts in conference play. Duke is also an average defensive team. It's tough to imagine Kansas running through six games without Tyshawn Taylor's turnover and free throw woes featuring prominently. Ohio State struggles with three-point shooting, which becomes especially key if teams can take away Jared Sullinger inside. North Carolina's problems have been documented above.

Michigan State may just be the second best team in the country right now. Draymond Green is not the most talented player, but he's unquestionably the best leader and best teammate. If a big play or big stop has to be made for the Spartans, the senior Green will probably be the one to make it. As a team, the only weakness Michigan State has is that it perhaps turns over the ball a little more than normal. The Spartans wouldn't have as much talent on the floor if they played Kentucky in a tournament situation, but they would certainly be capable of keeping up. I don't know if that can be said about some of the other possible top four seeds in the NCAA tournament.

If any commentators try to tell you that there is no great team in college basketball this year, don't listen. By most any quantitative or qualitative measure, Kentucky is the best in the land, and it might not be close. A special next six weeks could even make the 2011-12 Wildcats a historically great club.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 6:39 PM | Comments (0)

February 20, 2012

Gotta Have More Cowbells

A plastic bag drifted along Genesee Street like a tumbleweed rolling through the forgotten town of an old spaghetti western. The only trace of commerce on this downtown thoroughfare was an illuminated "Cash For Gold" sign in a window across the street. Painted on the side of a nearby building was the skyline of a much younger city, backlighted by a shining yellow sun with rays that stretched to every edge, and bearing the tagline, "Utica: Always Reaching Towards Greater..." The brick that held the final word had crumbled away, and its dust now lay in the weeds creeping through the sidewalk at the base of the building.

The few who have jobs here were all back home, far away from the urban decay to which they are tethered throughout the work week. And yet, on this Saturday morning, Utica had all the wonder of the first city I'd ever seen. I had found a sense of renewal in its midst.

It started out as a throw-away weekend. Utica College hadn't called my son since scheduling him for a football recruiting visit nearly a month earlier, and he already had his pick of eight other Division III schools that were making room for him on their autumn rosters. Besides, what parent wants to send his kid to school in central New York, where perpetually grey skies sink so low as to make a skyscraper out of the 14-story Adirondack Bank building? Not to mention, he'd be in the heart of Giants country, and Big Blue is an unappealing color for a Patriots fan to endure over the next four years.

That was my first surprise. The Mohawk Valley is practically a neighbor to the Canyon of Heroes, and although the convergence of recruits drawn predominantly from New York State leaned toward the Giants, there was a noticeable paucity of Eli Manning jerseys in and around campus. On a map, Utica appears to rest within the shadow of New York City's ebullience for professional sports, and on a still night you can no doubt hear the discharge of Plaxico Burress' firearms in the distance, but this is a region spilling over with a passion in amateur athletics. In the watershed of Jeremy Lin, who was raining jumpers on the Lakers in Madison Square Garden that night, the local television station's half-hour sports recap was focused on Proctor and Notre Dame high school action, previews of the Syracuse vs. UConn men's game the following day, and the Utica College Pioneers.

Division III athletics can be quirky, especially in the Northeast. There's a timid Division II football presence here, and without that buffer some ambitious programs compete with FCS (f/k/a Division I-AA) schools for recruits. Others fill their rosters with JAGs who cracked the starting lineup in their senior year of high school and aren't ready to quit playing just yet. Most are somewhere in the middle, small liberal arts schools in remote locations that can't draw enough fans from a captive student body on an otherwise uneventful Saturday afternoon to fill up the single aluminum bleacher that is far too big for the family and close friends who've come up to watch their sons or buddies play.

Division III athletics can be the piece of field turf that America has forsaken, but in Utica it is the bright lights of Broadway.

Early in the weekend's meet-and-greet, coaches preached to recruits that Utica College has an unparalleled connection to its community, that fans throughout city and suburbs will come to them with their sports entertainment dollar. And they take it seriously enough that, as a Division III athlete, my son would have a considerable role in shaping the mood of an entire city each weekend. To give football recruits a February taste for what their autumns were about to become, their hosts brought them to the Pioneer men's hockey game at the Utica Memorial Auditorium that night. The Aud.

If the tarnish encasing professional sports could be dissolved in a single step, it would be the one leading through the second set of glass doors inside the Aud. The concourse was electric. A nearly continuous stream of white marquees advertising each concessionaire's wares ran off to the left and right, their flashing red lights illuminating the crowd for as far as the arc of the concourse would allow. People moved briskly through the cold interior air laced with odors of fried dough and overflowing beer, piling up before the opening face-off. The scene was a cross between the beach at Coney Island and the alley on the Strange Days album cover.

Through the gates, the air was still colder and even more charged, leaving little doubt that there was nowhere else to be in Utica on a Friday night than at Pioneers hockey. If you've never been in this arena, the effect is stunning. With the overhead scoreboard as its hub, silver cables radiate in all directions beneath the black under-roof like a giant bicycle wheel. It's actually part of a dual-cable system suspending the roof, believed to be the first of its kind in the world, and its design allows for an unobstructed view anywhere inside.

Excepting those seats reserved for season ticket-holders, which were designated by pumpkin-colored paper that the staff individually tapes to more than one thousand seat-backs before every game, you can sit anywhere. Imagine walking down the aisle with beers in each hand and a popcorn box pinned against your chest and not having to kick out the squatters hoping for a close-up of the resident superstar before having to take back their cheapie seats. Welcome to collegiate hockey.

The nostalgia of 1970s AHL hockey was overwhelming, induced in part by the rustic rink interior with its curtain-lined stage built into the wall just behind the home team goal, and in part by tacky local banners hanging on the blue exterior block walls. Tee shirts bearing Utica College's interconnected "UC" were fired into the crowd, not by an air cannon but by hand. I later learned that parts of the classic Paul Newman movie, Slap Shot, were actually filmed here, so the vibe was quite real.

I found a cardboard-backed telescopic seat in the lower section, another innovation ahead of its time. Of course, that time was 1959 and the upholstery has faded and worn away, just like the promising tagline of that brick wall downtown. A dad and his 10-year old son took up two seats to my left just as the National Anthem singer stumbled out of the blocks. She got as far as "Oh, say can..." before stopping, but the crowd filled in the "UC"' for her and she was back on her way.

The Pioneer men had fallen into a tailspin of late but were still clinging to a top ten national ranking when the puck first dropped. As dad took his seat, he told his son, "Let's hope they skate like they mean it tonight." He urged on each successive puck carrier by first name, in the same way that a Rangers wife might say, "Stop dicking around with it, Marian," or, "Take the trash out, Henrik."

Then, disaster. A turnover deep in their own zone put the Pioneers down an early goal. Dad stood and kicked his seat, and a little more fabric wafted to the cement bleacher floor. He stormed off without a word while his son, unfazed, shook a set of cowbells — orange in the left hand, blue in the right, the UC school colors — and eagerly awaited the next face-off. It occurred to me that I could use a set of cowbells, too, but for the remainder of the night, as hard as I tried, I could find none. These were a commodity that could no longer be purchased.

Other than one Jeter jersey and maybe one Giants cap, the arena was a sea of orange and blue. I had nearly forgotten I was in New York, but after a second goal by the now-hated Neumann Knights, the catcalls started. They went from lighthearted to mean-spirited as the deficit grew from one goal to three. Dad was going for beers after each goal and his weekend was on the brink of ruin, but otherwise, the hope and belief and cowbells never stopped. A coiled tee shirt dropped into the section next to ours.

There would be only one remaining regular season match after this, and it's a long summer until Pioneers football kicks off. To a fan, everyone was there to enjoy every last minute of the festivities. And when the horn sounded, they tied shoelaces to their cowbells, draped them over their shoulders, and turned their backs to the overhead scoreboard. Like Whos down in Whoville, they went out into the winter air with no presents in tow, grateful just the same.

I looked under a few seats for a stray cowbell or two to bring home to my younger son, but they had all been carried out with the exiting crowd. In the end, their sounds still ringing in my mind would be my only souvenir.

The next morning, I took a final stroll through downtown Utica. "People are all depressed around here," said a middle-aged woman sitting in front of the dormant fountain in the city square who claimed to live here all her life. "Nothing ever changes."

But on this weekend, something had.

Posted by Bob Ekstrom at 10:47 AM | Comments (0)

February 19, 2012

Looks Like Lance, Inc. Too Big to Fail

Shortly after 5 PM on the Friday prior to Super Bowl XLVI, U.S. Attorney Andre Brigotte, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Central District of California quietly issued a three-sentence press release.

The federal investigation against Lance Armstrong had been terminated without an indictment being filed against him.

Federal government agencies, its courts, and the United States Congress are wont to release information about controversial legislation or court decisions, which could prove unpopular, before they high-tail it out of town on a Friday evening or during holiday times throughout the year. And Super Bowl weekend certainly qualifies as one of those times, when the media especially has a one-track collective mind, fixated upon Super Bowl Sunday.

For nearly a two-year period, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) invested untold millions of dollars, at taxpayer expense, for various investigations pertinent to Lance Armstrong. High-profile federal agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) of the Inspector General were utilized.

The lead federal agent on the case was Jeff Novitzsky of the BALCO case fame, as well as the lead investigator in the indictment against Roger Clemens. Novitzsky is now looking to catch on with another high-profile case with which to consume his time.

The way in which the DOJ bailed, however, is nearly as suspicious as the story behind one Lance Armstrong; once so celebrated for his seven Tour de France winning titles, yet in some cam reviled for possibly cheating along the road to those seven crowns.

But the sudden halt of this notorious case might prove unpopular to not only the cycling world, but to its regulatory bodies, including the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), and not the least of which to the public-at-large.

Not significantly enough reported is that the Lance Armstrong case is both similar and dissimilar, at the same time, to the federal cases against Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Bonds was found guilty in 2011 of one count of obstruction of justice during his Grand Jury testimony during the discovery process of BALCO in 2003. And Roger Clemens will have a new federal trial in April 2012 after a July 2011 federal mistrial.

All three cases involve world renowned elite athletes who possess over-inflated egos and enjoy enormous wealth, allowing them to lawyer-up with some of the most accomplished and powerful defense attorneys money can buy.

And of their supposed misdeeds, all three athletes' cases are relative to alleged consumption or administration of performance-enhancing substances or of illegally consuming pharmaceuticals.

At the very least, using banned substances is in violation of their respective sport's regulatory body or league's rules, let alone in violation of state or federal laws.

Barry Bonds was tried for lying before a federal Grand Jury and for giving false testimony as to whether he knowingly use illicit and/or illegal performance-enhancing substances or drugs, such as human growth hormone (HGH) and/or anabolic steroids.

Roger Clemens was indicted for allegedly lying before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform during a hearing in January 2008 on illegal steroid use in Major League Baseball.

It was the second of two hearings by the same Congressional committee on steroids in MLB; the initial one held in March 2005.

It remains curious, however, how Rafael Palmeiro allegedly lied in his finger-wagging testimony before the very same Congressional committee in 2005 that he never took steroids and never faced any legal consequences or an investigation like Bonds or Clemens did. It was later learned in May 2005 that Palmeiro had most likely given false testimony when his MLB drug test a few weeks later revealed he tested positive for anabolic steroids.

Clemens was not required to testify, yet volunteered. And four years later, after having been indicted for perjury after giving false testimony to Congress as to whether he used performance enhancing substances or drugs, his retrial proceeds.

Where the Armstrong case differs is in its scope. It involves the sponsorship of his pro cycling team named Tailwind Sports from 2001-2004 in his quest to win his eventual total of seven Tour de France trophies.

Armstrong's case did not involve perjury, but rather allegations of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy, among other issues. Were he tried, it would have been under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO, and famously known for prosecuting members of organized crime.

Yet it was the specific sponsorship by the USPS which was investigated, prompted the sworn testimony from Armstrong's former teammates, Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton, among others. They both admitted to using EPO and to doping themselves and pointed the finger at Armstrong for supplying the illicit and illegal substances to them.

It has been difficult for news organizations to shed light on the investigation and its various components, as unfortunately firewalls were put up by the DOJ, the USPS, as well as other principals involved. That led many to speculate about the veracity of Armstrong's innocence.

The USPS in fact spent $31.9 million on Armstrong's cycling team for its expenses over those four years, providing for 68% of the team's operating budget.

And over the past 8-12 years, the USPS was successful in withholding any detail on the financing of the team.

But recently, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was filed by ESPN and surprisingly granted by the USPS, albeit with redacted information, which led to confirmation of the $31.9 million.

However, how much was spent by the DOJ on the pre-trial discovery process remains to be seen.

And during it sponsorship of Armstrong's team, the USPS even hired its own public relations firm to avoid any appearance of impropriety, or being associated with rumored doping on the USPS cycling team, which later proved true. It even installed a morals perpitude and drug clause into its agreement the agreement with Armstrong's Tailwind Sports. Obviously, it remained unenforced, as the team was paid in full.

The USPS also insists that it was entitled to non-disclosure of its expenses for Armstrong, as it considers itself an "independent" federal agency.

Truth be told, the USPS is a semi-independent federal agency run by a Board of Governors of nine, appointed by the President of the U.S. Its operating expenses are largely dependent upon sale of its "postal products," which became prevalent in the 1980s.

But as provided by law, the USPS is a not-for-profit agency; although we constantly hear that it is not drawing enough of a profit to provide services. Well, it is only entitled to break even and not reap a profit, according to law.

The USPS still continues to enjoy certain federal subsides and certain legal protections, and comes under the purview of the U.S. Congress as well as the Executive Branch, commensurate with federal laws, regulations and pension law.

Therefore, for Armstrong to be involved with either of illegal or illicit activities through sponsorship of a federal entity presents concern worthy of a federal investigation. And to drop such without a conclusion or explanation is nearly as deplorable.

Furthermore, Lance Armstrong's cancer research foundation, Livestrong, which he founded as a cancer survivor, also remained in jeopardy, had he been indicted. In a climate starving for feel-good stories and a foundation reliant upon potential donors, Livestrong could have been irretrievably impacted.

Yet, in the past year or so, discrepancies have arisen concerning appropriation of funding for Livestrong. It prides itself that 80% of all donations are invested in scientific cancer research. But some, such as journalist, Bill Gifford, an Outside Magazine contributor, have done the research that indicates that Livestrong's books indicate otherwise.

And the question is: for the rich, powerful, and politically connected who are an asset to corporations, the philanthropic community, legislators, or agency appointees, will they remain unscathed? The answer is of course "yes," not unlike the "too big to fail" crowd on Wall Street, most of whom remain free.

Therefore, this is not so much a case about playing and upholding the fairness of competitive sports, as it is about playing a different kind of game; one of deception with a free pass posing as the trophy.

But it seems that everyone here wins except, of course, for sports fans, taxpayers, and those who still play by the rules. Yet there are those who still choose to believe that goodness and moral character will prevail and make up for the cheating, corrupt governance, and corporate malfeasance.

One can only hope.

Posted by Diane M. Grassi at 12:53 PM | Comments (5)

February 17, 2012

Foul Territory: Lin and Tonic, BCS "Bowls"

* Wait! Jeremy Lin is Not Black?! Or Boxer Rebellion — Floyd Mayweather said New York Knicks point guard Jeremy Lin is getting attention not because of his play, but because of his race. The boxing icon said if Lin, an Asian American, were black, he wouldn't get the same praise. Lin, in response, said if he were indeed black, he'd be afraid to fight Manny Pacquiao, too.

* TC(H)U, or "Higher" Learning, or Scorned Frogs — Four football players were among 17 Texas Christian University students arrested in a drug bust Wednesday. Undercover officers in Fort Worth bought marijuana from at least two Horned Frog players, both of whom boasted of smoking pot from a BCS bowl.

* Freak "Show," or the Moon Also Rises Again — Randy Moss says he wants to return to the NFL in 2012, ending his retirement announced on August 1 of last year. Reportedly, it's the first time the term "there's just no quit in him" has ever been used to describe Moss. Moss made the announcement on Ustream on Monday, his 35th birthday, and hopes his return will generate interest from many teams, which is the only kind of "contact" he enjoys.

* 2012: A Space (Eater) Odyssey — The Tampa Bay Buccaneers released Albert Haynesworth on Wednesday, saving them $7.2 million in cap space for 2012. It was a dark day for Haynesworth, as well as for Bill Cosby, who was reminded of the day in 1985 when Fat Albert was cancelled.

* Tiger Spoof, or Rivalry Weak — Phil Mickelson shot a blistering 64 in the final round of the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am, winning by three shots, as playing partner Tiger Woods shot a 75 to finish tied for 15th. Woods was optimistic in defeat, saying his game was "close," and was quick to point out that with one more major win, there will again be "11" between he and Mickelson.

* Cuba Libre, or There Used to Be Missiles in Cuba Aimed at the United States, Now it's Baseball Players — The Oakland A's signed Cuban defector Yoenis Cespedes to a 4-year, $36 million deal, becoming the A's highest-paid player. Cespedes defected to the Dominican Republic in the summer of 2011, where he established residency in January 2012. Cespedes bats right and throws right, but as far as Cuba is concerned, does everything else "left."

* IN-vertebrate, or He's Been Under More Knives Than Centers — Peyton Manning had a previously unreported fourth medical procedure on his neck last year, according to a Sports Illustrated report. That means Manning had four procedures performed in a 19-month span that ended in September. Manning is expected to meet with Colts owner Jim Irsay in the coming week to determine his future in Indianapolis, a meeting in which Irsay is sure to ask if Manning has his head on straight.

* Rowdy Roddy Tweeter — NFL commissioner Roger Goodell reportedly will make $20 million per year by the end of his current contract. That number didn't sit well with Roddy White, who voiced his displeasure on Twitter, saying "How in the hell can you pay a man this much money that can't run tackle or catch." Goodell's salary seems reasonable when you consider that White, who led the league in drops in 2011, makes $9 million per year to do everything but catch.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 1:18 PM | Comments (1)

February 16, 2012

Draft a Critical Phase of NFL Business

Professional football is a business.

You hear that all the time from NFL players, especially at this time of year when players nearing the end of their careers are unceremoniously dumped with no regard to years of faithful service.

Joe Montana to the Chiefs. Emmitt Smith to the Cardinals. Peyton Manning to the...

It's just business. Nothing personal.

And they're right. It is just business. Fans don't like to hear this, because we live by the game-to-game emotions like players do. We may root for a particular franchise, but what we're really rooting for in-season is a particular team. Don't tell me what makes sense for the long-term — we got the Jets on Sunday, dammit.

But front-office administrators can't be that short sighted. If you're only looking at the next week, or even the next season, with no long-term projection for two, three, four years out, you are doomed.

(Seen Daniel Snyder at any Super Bowl parades lately?)

We normally hear the "it's just business" line when it comes to money decisions at the end of careers. But the business principles apply throughout the entire organization: talent procurement and development. Establishing strong middle management. Empowering employees and establishing a culture of accountability. You look at any successful business in America, and you'll find those bedrock business principles at play. And football franchises are no different.

Except for the draft.

In the draft, football franchises have the single biggest opportunity to establish a successful long-term strategy. You have a captive talent pool with no choice as to where they work, and no real room for negotiation on compensation thanks to last summer's Collective Bargaining Agreement.

It's like if you spent the past few years getting a law degree from Harvard, but instead of being able to play the open market and go to the highest bidder, you went to a fancy ballroom one Thursday night in April and they got together to decide where you will spend the next four years and how much you would get paid — and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

That is the advantage football teams have when it comes to talent procurement. But just like any advantage or power, it's what you do with it that really counts. Businesses all over the world have different advantages — weak labor or environmental laws, friendly tax codes, natural surpluses of raw materials, etc. But just because you have an advantage doesn't mean you'll succeed. You actually need to have the brains (and balls) to turn those advantages into sound strategies and a successful business model.

In the NFL draft, success has to be a mix of first-rounders and later-round success. Look at the roster of the New York Giants, who just won their second Super Bowl in five years. Not only do you have hits with first rounders like Jason Pierre-Paul, Hakeem Nicks and Eli Manning (technically a trade), but Justin Tuck, Barry Cofield and Ahmad Bradshaw were all drafted in the third round or later.

And that's what is at stake in 70 or so days at the NFL draft. Who can you get, and at what value? Remember the goal isn't just the next Super Bowl. It's the Super Bowl after that, and the Super Bowl after that, and the Super Bowl after that. Contending for just one year is nice, but contending every year is so much better.

But how? How do you turn those opportunities into success on the field? There are experts all over these internets that will sell you the secret sauce if you've got the money to buy, but it really comes down to the same basic talent procurement rules of all business.

Rule 1: Talent with poor character will strangle you. Look at DeSean Jackson with the Eagles. He fell to the second round in 2008, the seventh wide receiver selected, because of character concerns coming out of California. Over the next three years, he looked like a steal. Then he decided he wanted to get paid, and things deteriorated in a hurry.

Now Philadelphia needs to decide whether to use the franchise tag for one year and continue the drama, pay him long term and hope he matures, or let him walk and start over. In the short-term, Jackson worked out fine, but those same character concerns from college have now become a major distraction and put the franchise in a quandary. It's not too late for things to work out, but there is also a big risk that the DeSean Jackson era in Philadelphia turns out to be a net negative investment for the franchise.

(Cowboys fans, be prepared for this same scenario to play out with Dez Bryant in a few years.)

Rule 2:. Don't forget who you are. Your draft class isn't walking into an empty locker room. There is already a team in place, and the players you bring in have to fit into what you are, both culturally and schematically. 2011 selections like New England's Nate Solder (first round), Oakland's Stefen Wisniewski (second round), Washington's Roy Helu (fourth round) and Baltimore's Pernell McPhee (fifth round) fit not only the culture that existed within their respective franchises, but were able to plug into the system on the field. They provided the short term lift for 2011 AND are legitimate building blocks for the franchise.

Rule 3:. Don't over-extend to acquire talent. Both A.J. Green and Julio Jones look like great players. But Green cost the Bengals the fourth pick in 2011, while Jones cost the Falcons the 27th, 59th, and 124th picks in the 2011 draft, and the 22nd and fourth round picks in the 2012 draft. While Green and Jones may both go on to have great careers, the Bengals had to expend fewer resources to acquire him, and as a result have more opportunities to set themselves up for long-term success. The Falcons, meanwhile, may have the best 1-2 receiver duo in the game, but are at a disadvantage in building the rest of the team.

Rule 4: Look for undervalued assets. While you don't want to pay above-market prices for talent, you absolutely want to look for talent that you can acquire at below-market prices. The Patriots' two tight ends, Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez, were second- and fourth-round picks, respectively. Gronkowski was coming off a lost season at Arizona because of a back injury, and Hernandez had some maturity concerns coming out of Florida (different concerns and price tag for Hernandez make it a different situation than Jackson). The Patriots took both and hit the jackpot.

(Note from future draft preview article — I'm putting University of Arizona receiver Juron Criner on the all-value list for this year.)

Rule 5: Don't get too cocky. Since we're heaping praise on the Patriots for Solder, Gronkowski and Hernandez, let's remember also that they have serially under-performed in drafting defensive backs and wide receivers. I think you can chalk that up to the arrogance of Bill Belichick and the assumption that the superiority of the system can transcend the lack of a superior skill set. At some point, you have to get your ego out of the way and just draft the big, fast, tall guy who catches the ball really well. It's like recently retired St. Louis Cardinals manager (and Belichick buddy) Tony La Russa hitting the pitcher eighth. There are aspects of conventional wisdom that aren't total BS. Try them once in a while.

Prospects will be broken down to extreme over the next two months. And on draft day, NFL franchises will make their biggest investment of the year. Blow this opportunity, and it may cripple you for years. Hit it big, and you may be picking confetti out of your hair.

It's just business, but the stakes couldn't get any higher.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 2:29 PM | Comments (0)

February 15, 2012

Shock(er) Value

For the few brave souls willing to bear with me for the remainder of this article, I've got a bit of trivia for you. Read on, and see if you can guess what team I'm talking about before I tell you at the end of the article.

Around this time every year, I write an article about sleeper teams that could surprise some people come March Madness. Thanks to the fact that I've picked as many as five teams each year, I've looked like less of an idiot on a couple of occasions (like with Northern Iowa and Cornell two years ago), but having an extensive list and being right about one or two teams isn't really impressive.

This time around, there will be no list of teams to give me a better chance of looking like a genius if one of them makes some noise in the tournament. This year, I've got one team about which two things are guaranteed.

The first is this — the selection committee will not give them their due, and to this point, neither have the poll voters for college basketball. This team has a better record, against a better strength of schedule, than 13th-ranked San Diego State. They've also beaten 11th-ranked UNLV by 19 points, and then-15th ranked Creighton by 21 points — at Creighton. An average game for them this year results in a win by the score of 78-63, which means they're scoring more points-per-game than the top two teams in the country.

All this, and they've still been ignored all year, until this week, when they appeared as the last team in the AP poll, and first team on the outside-looking-in of the ESPN poll. If all of this (along with the title of the article) still isn't enough to give away the mystery team, here's the last hint before the second guarantee — they won the NIT tournament last year.

The second thing I know for sure about this team is this — they will shock you in March. Trust me on this one. When Joe Ragland can't miss, and seven-footer Garrett Stutz is making All-American big men look silly, the announcers on CBS, TBS, TNT, and TruTV will be gushing about how surprising the whole thing is. Don't make the same mistake they will, be prepared for what will happen.

The aforementioned Ragland has the third highest adjusted shooting percentage in the country, and he's shooting 47% from range — and there's much more Stutz than his seven-foot frame, but in order to fully grasp the impact he makes when he's on the court, you have to see him in action.

By this point, you're probably at least mildly interested in finding some highlights of this team, or maybe even watching their next game. Many of you have probably already figured out who this mystery team is. But I still don't think anyone, myself included, knows just how much this team is capable of yet.

But that's perfectly fine with the Wichita State Shockers. Disrespected teams from the Missouri Valley Conference have a recent habit of slaying giants in March. Isn't that right, Kansas?

Posted by Paul Foeller at 2:04 PM | Comments (0)

February 14, 2012

Best Wide Receivers Not in the HOF: 1990s

Who is the best wide receiver eligible for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, but not yet enshrined? When football fans cry "snub," there's a good chance they're talking about a wide receiver. For years, it was Lynn Swann or Art Monk. Now, it's guys like Cris Carter and Tim Brown. Players at the other stat positions — quarterbacks and running backs — are elected to the PFHOF with much higher frequency than wideouts.

For this project, we'll examine in depth 25 eligible wide receivers with strong backing for the Hall of Fame: Cliff Branch, Tim Brown, Harold Carmichael, Cris Carter, Wes Chandler, Gary Clark, Henry Ellard, Irving Fryar, Charley Hennigan, Harlon Hill, Billy Howton, Harold Jackson, Herman Moore, Stanley Morgan, Drew Pearson, Art Powell, Andre Reed, Andre Rison, Sterling Sharpe, Del Shofner, Jimmy Smith, Mac Speedie, Hugh Taylor, Otis Taylor, and Billy Wilson. I believe only about five of those players deserve induction, but there's a case to be made for all of them.

It's difficult to compare players across eras at any position, and this is particularly true in the passing game, because the rules and statistics have changed so much. Today's wide receivers play 16-game schedules. They can't be bumped more than five yards downfield. Their quarterbacks are protected in ways Y.A. Tittle and Roger Staubach never dreamed of. They play in high-efficiency pass-oriented offenses, as opposed to the exciting but reckless bomb-it-down-the-field passing games of the past, when running was a way of life and throwing a sneaky change of pace or a mark of desperation. But we can certainly compare these players to their peers. Here's my list of 25, ranked by the number of times they were among the top 10 in their league in receiving yards:

Seven: Powell
Five: Brown, Carter, Clark, Jackson, Pearson, Shofner, Smith, Speedie, Wilson
Four: Branch, Ellard, Fryar, Hennigan, Howton, Moore, Sharpe, Otis Taylor
Three: Chandler, Hill, Morgan, Reed, Rison, Hugh Taylor
Two: Carmichael

To keep the statistics from skewing, I used top-five rankings (instead of top-10) for seasons before 1970, when the leagues were 8-16 teams rather than 26-32. This affected Hennigan, Howton, Speedie, Hugh Taylor, and Wilson, once each. The two who stand out on the list, obviously, are Powell and Carmichael. But let's review each player's résumé, beginning this week with receivers of the 1990s. Please note that WRs of the late '80s and early '90s, like Reed and Sharpe, are in next week's column. If you're here for another era, check out our other articles in this series:

Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1980s
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1970s
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1960s
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1950s

Tim Brown
1988-2004, Los Angeles/Oakland Raiders, Tampa Bay Buccaneers
1,094 receptions, 14,934 yards, 100 TD

The Hall of Fame voters, in recent years, have almost entirely ignored special teams contributions. That hurts Brown, who was a dazzling punt returner (3,320 yds, 10.2 avg, 3 TDs). He made two Pro Bowls as a returner, in 1988 and '91, and in 2001 became the oldest NFL player (35) to return a punt for a TD. Brown also holds the rookie record for all-purpose yards (2,317), a record he took from Gale Sayers and has now owned for more than two decades.

Of course, Brown is most remembered as a receiver who was among the best at his position for a decade. He had nine consecutive 1,000-yard receiving seasons and ranks 4th all-time in receiving yards. He's 5th all-time in receptions and 6th in receiving TDs. The argument against Brown is that he was consistent rather than exceptional. He led the league in receptions once, never in yards or TDs. In his 17-year career, Brown made the Associated Press All-Pro team just once, as a second-team selection in 1997. Can a guy be a Hall of Famer even if he was never the best at his own position? Brown made nine Pro Bowls and was a second-team selection to the 1990s NFL All-Decade team.

Cris Carter
1987-2002, Philadelphia Eagles, Minnesota Vikings, Miami Dolphins
1,101 receptions, 13,899 yards, 130 TD

Fourth all-time in both receptions and receiving TDs, Carter joined Jerry Rice as the starting wide receivers on the 1990s NFL All-Decade team. He was selected to eight Pro Bowls and was twice named first-team All-Pro. In 1994, he set the single-season record for receptions (122, since broken), and in three other seasons he led the NFL in receiving TDs. Jerry Rice, Marvin Harrison, and Carter are the only players in history with five straight years of double-digit receiving touchdowns.

The Pro Football Hall of Fame voters are the same people who select All-Decade Teams. In 2000, they chose Carter, not Michael Irvin, to join Rice on the All-90s Team. In 2007, though, they elected Irvin to Canton, and in each of the next five seasons, they've passed on Carter. Why did they change their minds? Carter was more productive in the 1980s, and Irvin didn't even play in the 2000s, so if Carter was even close in the '90s, it stands to reason he's ahead for their careers. Maybe it's a by-product of Irvin's fame and flamboyance, but Carter isn't exactly low-profile, either.

I was surprised when Carter didn't get elected to Canton in either of his first two years of eligibility. But I think the voters have been reluctant to enshrine him partly for the same reason Art Monk had to wait so long. Monk was repeatedly dismissed as a guy who caught 900 eight-yard hooks, and who wasn't the most dangerous receiver on his own team. Carter averaged just 12.6 yards per reception, one of the lowest marks in history for an elite wide receiver. Defenses fear the deep threat, the guy who can burn you on any given play. For Washington in the '80s and early '90s, that was Gary Clark, not Monk. For Minnesota, it was Randy Moss, not Carter. From 1998-2000, Carter caught 34 TD passes, more than anyone except ... Moss, who had 43.

Carter last led the Vikings in receiving yards in 1995. Thereafter, he was out-gained every year by either Jake Reed or Moss. And yet, half his production came after '95: five of his eight 1,000-yard seasons, four of his six double-digit TD years, overall about 47% of his statistical value. Essentially, Carter is battling the notion that he usually wasn't even the best receiver on his own team, that he was a system player who seldom had to deal with double-teams and caught a bunch of short passes. He was reliable more than explosive, and he was tough like Monk, not graceful like Lance Alworth or Lynn Swann. Carter just doesn't have the highlight reel those guys do, and he never won a championship.

Irving Fryar
1984-2000, New England Patriots, Miami Dolphins, Philadelphia Eagles, Washington Redskins
851 receptions, 12,785 yards, 84 TD

Fryar was a late bloomer. The first overall pick in the 1984 draft, Fryar quickly made his mark on special teams — he was a Pro Bowl returner, with 3 punt return TDs in his first three seasons — but didn't emerge as a major receiving threat until he left New England to play for the Dolphins and Eagles. His first 1,000-yard season came in 1991, when Fryar was 29 and playing his eighth year in the NFL. He was 31 when he made his first Pro Bowl as a receiver, a 10-year veteran.

I view Fryar much the same way I viewed Rafael Palmeiro (before the positive test for PEDs). Fryar's career numbers are great for when he played, and he obviously was a good player for a long time. But he was never a guy we thought of as the best at his position. He made five Pro Bowls (one as a returner) and was second-team All-Pro twice (once as a returner). That distinguishes him from almost every receiver in history. But when you're talking about the Hall of Fame, does it distinguish him from guys like Cris Carter and Henry Ellard and Tim Brown?

Fryar eventually recorded five 1,000-yard seasons, and his accomplishments as a returner are significant, something that should factor into any consideration of his Hall of Fame case. It's natural, I think, to compare him to Ellard. They were drafted just one year apart, both were great punt returners early in their careers, both had most of their best seasons in the '90s, both had career numbers that looked exceptional before the explosion of receiving stats in the last decade or so.

Choosing between the two, I'd go with Ellard. He had more good seasons, more of his production came before league-wide receiving numbers went through the roof, and he had a stronger peak. Ellard had four seasons among the top four in receiving yards, Fryar none. They were both great players, but Ellard was more exceptional.

Herman Moore
1991-2002, Detroit Lions, New York Giants
670 receptions, 9,174 yards, 62 TD

I know you probably don't think Moore belongs on this list. He's here for the statheads. I love stat geeks, and on some level I'm one of them, so let's review Moore's qualifications. He was a four-time Pro Bowler and made three All-Pro teams as a starter (more than Cris Carter and Tim Brown combined). His 1995 season ranks among the most impressive statistical seasons of all time: 123 rec, 1686 yds, 14 TD. Looking at the 1990s as a whole, Moore had more receptions than Andre Reed, more yardage than Henry Ellard, and more touchdowns than Michael Irvin. You can probably win a bar bet with that, by the way. Who scored more TDs in the '90s, Michael Irvin or Herman Moore?

Moore's problem is two-fold. One is that his production was largely limited to seven seasons. He had over 900 receiving yards every year from 1992-98, with one other year at 434, and nothing else over 200. When you're trying to stand out from contemporaries like Brown and Carter, who played forever, that's a real problem. Moore had four 1,000-yard receiving seasons in the '90s. That's good. But seven players had more (Brown, Carter, Ellard, Fryar, Irvin, Rice, Rison), and so far only two of them are in the Hall of Fame. Moore's other issue is that he played for the Lions at a time when (1) they weren't an elite team, (2) they had kind of a weird offense, (3) he was overshadowed by Barry Sanders.

Several years ago, Chase Stuart introduced a stat-based system that ranked Moore as the 23rd-most valuable wide receiver in history, ahead of players like Ellard (26), Reed (35), Art Monk (36), Gary Clark (46), Sterling Sharpe (48), Rison (72), and Fryar (unrated). How does Moore get that high in a statistical analysis? It's about his peak. Moore had three seasons of 100 receptions, trailing only Jerry Rice, Marvin Harrison, and Wes Welker (4 each).

Looking at each player's best seasons, though, it's not apparent to me that Moore stands out from the best of his contemporaries. Moore's relatively short prime overlaps precisely with an unprecedented statistical boom for receivers, further exaggerating his already impressive accomplishments. Putting numbers in context, how do Moore's best seasons look? Let's use 1994-98. During those five seasons, Moore ranked 11th, 3rd, 3rd, 6th, and 24th in receiving yards. That's an average of 9th or 10th. Those same seasons, he placed 23rd, 1st, 2nd, tied for 1st, and 8th in receptions — an average of 7th. His receiving TDs ranked 4th, 4th, 11th, 11th, and about 40th (actually a bazillion-way tie for 37th). That averages out to about 14th. Seventh, 9th, and 14th. That's obviously good, but it doesn't blow you away.

Sterling Sharpe's five best seasons (1989-90, 92-94) average 4th, 5th, and 5th. Andre Rison's average 5th, 9th, and 3rd. Cris Carter is 3rd, 9th, and 4th, Tim Brown 7th, 5th, and 19th. You know what, let's just do a chart. Average rank in five best seasons:

This is a quick-and-dirty rating method, underemphasizing the most important stat (yards) and unduly skewed by a couple of bad TD years, so I wouldn't want to draw any specific conclusions from it. But I believe it shows that even looking only at his best seasons, Moore is not strongly distinguished — at least not statistically — from other great receivers yet to be enshrined in Canton, most of whom had longer careers and more good seasons. Moore is remembered largely as a good player who was very productive in his system for about three years, and I believe that is a fairly accurate representation of his career.

Andre Rison
1989-2000, Indianapolis Colts, Atlanta Falcons, Cleveland Browns, Jacksonville Jaguars, Green Bay Packers, Kansas City Chiefs, Oakland Raiders
743 receptions, 10,205 yards, 84 TD

A first-team All-Pro in 1990 and a five-time Pro Bowler, Rison had five 1,000-yard seasons and in 1993 tied Jerry Rice for the most receiving TDs in the NFL (15). In his final season, Rison became just the seventh player in history with 700 receptions, 10,000 yards, and 80 touchdowns. NFL players with four consecutive seasons of double-digit receiving TDs: Tommy McDonald, Jerry Rice, Rison, Cris Carter, Randy Moss, and Marvin Harrison.

This is an era in which the phrase "other than Jerry Rice" comes up often. We'll expand on this next week, but how would Rison's career look different without Rice in the landscape? In 1990 and 1991, Rison would have led or tied for the league lead in receiving TDs. He also would have led the NFL in receptions in 1990. He might have been first-team All-Pro in 1992, and likely in '93. That's a much different résumé, particularly on the touchdowns. Rather than three years finishing second and one tied for first, he's got two seasons alone at the top and another tied for the lead. A much different narrative builds around a player who always leads the league in an important stat like that.

Rison played for seven NFL teams. The most by any current Hall of Fame receiver is five (Tommy McDonald). A guy's career looks fragmented when he moves around so often, hard to view as a whole. Irving Fryar and Rison did a lot of the same things as Andre Reed, but the constant team-switching makes it hard, psychologically, to view them that way. During his NFL career, Rison caught touchdown passes from Jack Trudeau (4), Chris Miller (25), Scott Campbell (2), Billy Joe Tolliver (6), Wade Wilson (3), Bobby Hebert (11), Jeff George (9), Vinny Testaverde (1), Eric Zeier (2), Mark Brunell (2), Brett Favre (1), Elvis Grbac (7), and Rich Gannon (11).

Part of the reason Rison moved around so much is that he was viewed as a bit of a headcase. He was a showboat in Atlanta, but you can get away with that when you're performing at a high level. Rison signed a big free agent contract with the Browns, then publicly cursed at the Cleveland fans. He played for four teams in three years, his girlfriend alleged that he was abusive, he went to the Raiders — of course he went to the Raiders — and Rison even played for the Toronto Argonauts after his NFL career ended (winning a Grey Cup in 2004).

Rison was a Pro Bowler for the Chiefs in 1997, and a valuable player for the Packers in the 1996 postseason, so it's not like his talent dried up after he left Atlanta, or that he couldn't succeed without the run and shoot. But that was the widespread impression at the time; Rison's success with Green Bay was a real surprise coming from someone most fans thought was finished as an impact player.

The Hall of Fame argument in Rison's favor is that he has good career stats for his era, and he was a remarkable player in his prime, with five 1,000-yard seasons and four years of double-digit TDs. The counter-argument is that Rison only had six or seven seasons in which he provided real value for his team. He didn't live up to his contract in Cleveland, he got a bad reputation, Left Eye burned his house down, and he played for seven teams, eight if you count the Argos. His career stats are good, especially the TDs, but they aren't impressive when compared to contemporaries with longer careers, like Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Henry Ellard, Irving Fryar, and Andre Reed.

The off-field stuff isn't supposed to factor into HOF voting, but Rison's uneven career and locker room impact are fair game. Whether you like Rison for Canton probably depends partly on how much weight you give to those factors, and whether you're more interested in career accomplishments, or you're focused on the player's prime. From 1990-94, Rison was a truly great player.

Jimmy Smith
1992-2005, Dallas Cowboys, Jacksonville Jaguars
862 receptions, 12,287 yards, 67 TD

You probably don't remember Jimmy Smith on the Cowboys in 1992. He played seven games and never caught a pass. He didn't play at all the next two years. Smith didn't become a full-time starter until 1996, when he was 27, an age when many players begin to decline.

Smith made the most of the years he did play, with nine 1,000-yard receiving seasons and five Pro Bowl appearances. Smith was only the third player with multiple seasons catching 110 or more passes, the first two being Jerry Rice and Cris Carter from 1994-95. He is one of only five receivers with nine or more 1,000-yard seasons (Tim Brown, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Rice), and one of five with six straight 1,100-yard seasons (Marvin Harrison, Torry Holt, Moss, Rice). Smith led the NFL in receptions in 1999 (116), then the highest total in history outside the whacked '94-'95 seasons.

Smith was occasionally dogged by drug issues, and his four-game suspension in 2003 probably kept him from becoming the only person besides Rice with 10 straight 1,000-yard seasons. Smith retired when he was still a good player; his final season yielded 70 catches, 1023 yards, and 6 TDs. Smith in 2004 gained the third-most receiving yards ever by a 35-year-old (1,172), and he and Rice are the only players ever to gain over 1,000 yards in a full season after turning 36.

So in Smith you have one of the best old receivers ever, a guy who had a lot of good seasons, including five years over 1,200 yards and two seasons catching more than 110 passes. His detractors would point out that while Smith did have exceptional years, and did play well in several others, he had so few seasons on the field that his overall statistics don't measure up to the best players of his generation. Harrison, Owens, and Isaac Bruce all have far more impressive career stats.

Anything that causes a player's career to be broken up usually dampens the perception of his greatness. Smith was a star from 1996-2005. If that whole period had fallen into a single decade, how differently might he be viewed? Smith had more receptions and yards than anyone but Marvin Harrison, with the 4th-most receiving TDs (Harrison, Owens, Moss). When you think about someone who was maybe the 2nd-best receiver of the decade, certainly no lower than 4th — it's a different perception than right now. There's a comparison to be drawn between Smith from '95-'04 and Big Game Torry Holt in the 2000s, when BGTH led the league in receptions and yards, with about half as many touchdowns as Moss and Owens. Holt still has better numbers, but he played on a wild offense.

It's useful to me, in thinking about these issues, to break them down by era. Below, I've organized HOF receivers by the decade in which they most established their greatness.

1945-54: Tom Fears, Elroy Hirsch, Dante Lavelli, Pete Pihos
1950-59: n/a
1955-64: Raymond Berry, Tommy McDonald, Bobby Mitchell
1960-69: Lance Alworth, Don Maynard
1965-74: Fred Biletnikoff, Bob Hayes, Charley Taylor, Paul Warfield
1970-79: n/a
1975-84: Charlie Joiner, Steve Largent, John Stallworth, Lynn Swann
1980-89: James Lofton, Art Monk
1985-94: Jerry Rice
1990-99: Michael Irvin

Some of those assignments are close calls. Rice, for instance, was the premier receiver of the 1990s, and could easily fit into that block instead. Let's break this down a little more, looking at both the Hall of Famers and the contenders we've examined.

The chart above demonstrates the weakness of Moore's HOF case. He had three tremendous seasons, yes, but so did all the others, and they were effective players for much longer. Carter, in his third-best season, led the NFL in receiving touchdowns. Rison, in his third-best season, was 2nd in the NFL in both receptions and receiving TDs. Brown caught 90 passes for 1,344 yards. Irvin gained almost 1,400 yards and led all receivers in first downs. But those guys had a lot of other really good seasons, too. Moore didn't.

Just looking at career numbers, Fryar and Rison both compare well to Irvin. Obviously, there's more to it than that. Irvin had seven 1,000-yard seasons, two 1,500-yard seasons, five straight over 1,200. He was a team leader on a three-time Super Bowl champion. Fryar never caught 90 passes in a season, was never first-team All-Pro, only caught double-digit TD passes once. But he was an effective player for something like 15 years, and he was an impact performer on special teams. Rison was a great player basically all the same years as Irvin, and if touchdowns are a big deal to you, you could easily regard them as more or less equal. Of course, Rison doesn't nearly equal Irvin in the postseason, but that's a gap of opportunity as much as talent.

In most eras, there are 2-4 wide receivers honored with Hall of Fame recognition. From recent years, when the passing game has reached levels of unprecedented importance, so far there's just Rice and Irvin. But in looking at the early '90s, I don't think Fryar and Rison are as strong as some of the candidates I'll write about next week: Gary Clark, Henry Ellard, Andre Reed, and Sterling Sharpe. Rison was better, at his best, than Fryar, and that matters quite a lot. But Fryar was effective for so much longer, I think he did more to help his teams. To me, they're both great players, but probably not Hall of Famers. The guys who peaked a little later have a stronger case.

I understand why Brown and Carter haven't been enshrined yet. Receiving statistics are exploding, and their numbers don't look as glorious now that guys like Marvin Harrison, Randy Moss, and Terrell Owens have played full careers. Carter, once 2nd all-time in both catches and receiving TDs, is now 4th in both categories. The same thing happened to Brown with receiving yardage. Were we awed by their stats because they were truly great, or largely because of when they played and how the game is changing? Both players also have to fight the perception that they were good for a long time without being true standouts.

I don't buy that, for either one. Ron Wolf, the GM for the Packers in the '90s, told Sports Illustrated's Paul Zimmerman, "When [the Vikings] got in close, it was Carter you had to worry about. When they needed the key first down, who did they go to? Moss? No, it was Carter." You remember the old highlight show line, "Cris Carter, all he does is catch touchdowns." When you talk about a player like Irving Fryar, I think there's some truth to the idea that he had a lot of pretty good seasons without necessarily establishing true greatness. Carter had eight 1,000-yard seasons, six years with double-digit receiving TDs, led the NFL in a major receiving category four times and at one point set the single-season record for receptions. Carter was a standout.

The same is true for Brown. This isn't a guy who caught 60 passes for 800 yards every year for 15 years. He gained 1,300 yards in a season four times, scored 100 touchdowns, caught 80 passes in a season 10 times. He was also one of the best punt returners of his generation, and still holds the rookie record for all-purpose yards. It's true that Harrison, Moss, Owens, and Isaac Bruce have caught Brown and Carter on the all-time lists, and it's true that Brown and Carter played at a time when receiving statistics exploded, to unheard-of levels.

But Harrison, Moss, Owens, Bruce — those are all great players. And if you look at the list of active players, there's really no one else who figures to pass Brown and Carter any time soon. Reggie Wayne is still years away, and it's too early to even make predictions about guys like Andre Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald. Besides, we should compare players to their contemporaries, not guys a decade younger. In the '90s, who besides Jerry Rice did what Brown and Carter did?

Jimmy Smith is a harder case. I don't even know whether to group him with the '90s guys or the best of the early 2000s. Chronologically, there's really no one to compare him to. Jimmy Smith was drafted in 1992. No current HOF receiver was drafted later than 1988 (Michael Irvin) and no likely HOF receiver was drafted between '88 (Tim Brown, Sterling Sharpe) and '94 (Isaac Bruce). Between 1988-94, you've got Andre Rison ('89) Herman Moore ('91), Keenan McCardell ('91), and Smith.

But you can't really compare Jimmy Smith to Rison, because Rison was basically finished by the time Smith became a starter. And you can't compare Smith to Isaac Bruce, because Bruce played until 2009. Comparing Smith to Keenan McCardell is just silly, which I guess leaves Herman Moore and maybe Rod Smith.

J.Smith: 862 rec, 12,287 yds, 67 TD
R.Smith: 849 rec, 11,389 yds, 68 TD
Moore: 670 rec, 9,174 yds, 62 TD

See? This doesn't really tell you anything. But you can't compare Smith to the guys who played most of their careers in the 2000s, because Smith was already in his 30s then.

Smith looks terrible on that list. Yeah, he had a bunch of good seasons, a nice prime, but so did all the others. I guess you could argue that Bruce spent a lot of time as the number two guy behind Holt. Then again, Smith didn't play on the kind of pass-oriented offenses most of the others did.

My silly side is insisting that Jimmy Smith should obviously make the Hall of Fame, because ... he's incomparable! But the truth, I think, is that he falls a bit short, maybe as much by bad luck as anything. The way the receiving game is today, I think we're going to see a lot of players string 1,000-yard seasons together, some of them as many as Smith. There will be about half a dozen who have great seasons like Smith in '99, and about half of those will excel even further, push the records set by superstars like Moss and Owens and Harrison. To me, those are the Hall of Famers, and Smith is just barely that next group down. Here's how I rank the best non-HOF receivers of the 1990s:

1. Cris Carter — Eight-time Pro Bowler, set single-season reception record, caught 1,100 passes for 130 TDs.
HOF Qualifications: EXCELLENT. He should be in.

2. Tim Brown — Great punt returner with 1,000 receptions, almost 15,000 yards, and 100 TDs.
HOF Qualifications: EXCELLENT. He should be in.

3. Jimmy Smith — Made five Pro Bowls, gained 1,000 yards in every full season as a starter, caught 110 passes twice.
HOF Qualifications: FAIR. He probably doesn't need to be in.

4. Irving Fryar — Five-time Pro Bowler and standout punt returner who played 17 seasons and scored 88 total TDs.
HOF Qualifications: POOR. He probably shouldn't be in. But he was a heck of a player.

5. Andre Rison — Touchdown machine in the early '90s who revived his career with a 54-yard TD in the Super Bowl and a Pro Bowl with the Chiefs.
HOF Qualifications: POOR. He probably shouldn't be in. But what a force at his best.

6. Herman Moore — Remarkably consistent in the mid-'90s, with three straight seasons of more than 100 receptions.
HOF Qualifications: POOR. He probably shouldn't be in. But again, heck of a player.

***

Read the other articles in this series:

Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1980s
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1970s
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1960s
Best Wide Receivers Not in the Hall of Fame: 1950s

Posted by Brad Oremland at 4:38 PM | Comments (3)

February 13, 2012

All-Class NBA All-Stars

The NBA isn't always the easiest league to watch — for many reasons. From the proverbial "lack of effort" among professional players to the more nuanced shortcomings of fundamentally sound play, the league has been relatively unbearable for some time now. However, the worst deterrent for the NBA has to be the fact that the arithmetic mean for all egos in this sport has risen to astrological proportions, and so it becomes difficult to watch not only for lack of entertaining play, but also for lack of admirable people. However, there are still players who make watching the NBA worthwhile.

As fans, we are fraught with the same stories about the same players over and over on "SportsCenter," front-page news, and TNT/ESPN broadcasts of these games. How many more commentaries do we need to hear about D-Wade and LeBron's chemistry (or lack thereof)? Dwight Howard's dissatisfaction in Orlando? The Boston Celtics' average age of 61-years-old?

Perhaps that last one is a small exaggeration.

But honestly, with the All-Star Game fast approaching, I decided to make my own all-star selections — not focused solely on skill, but primarily on "class." Watching so many athletes play for "me" instead of "team" has inspired me to look at who I believe are the starting five on the All-Class NBA All-Star Team.

Let me be clear: this is not based on financial contributions and charity work. Even though many NBA players do a fantastic job giving back to the community, these efforts are rewarded with positive PR and tax write-offs. Furthermore, it's easier for players earning the league maximum to donate hefty sums of dollars to charity than the Brian Scalabrines of the league. Therefore, this list will be comprised of guys who project goodness on the court and, among other traits: A) play the game with dignity, B) represent themselves and their organizations proudly, C) earn the respect of teammates and opponents, and D) seem like all-around role models for young fans. The selections are as follows:

(Blare intimidating and ominous music...)

"And now, the starting lineup, for your 2011-12 All-Class NBA All-Stars!"

(Mild applause since fans seem to want drama and "decisions" instead of maturity.)

"At forward ... a humble scoring champion who, on the day of LeBron James' Decision re-signed with the small-market Oklahoma City Thunder without a microphone or cameras in his face. A man who took a laughable franchise that was on the verge of irrelevance to the brink of the NBA Finals ... Who has earned only 8 technical fouls over a four-year career ... Who still calls his mother "Mommy" when answering her phone calls (reportedly) ... 6 foot 9 inches, from the University of Texas ...

"KEVIN DURANT!"

(Applause, cameras flashing, Durant jogs through a tunnel of former classy NBAers, hi-fiving Dikembe Mutombo and Clyde Drexler along the way.)

"A 6-foot 8-inch forward ... Who routinely makes his teammates look better with unselfish, flashless, fundamentally sound basketball ... A player who can guard three different positions ... A man who married his high school sweetheart and has been (by all accounts) a loyal and monogamous husband and father of two ... Who was voted the seventh most intelligent professional athlete by the Sporting News in January 2012 ... From Duke ...

"SHANE BATTIER!"

(Surprised applause, a spattering of boos from people who can't stand anyone on the Miami Heat, but a chest bump from the ghost of the late class-act former NBA big man, Manute Bol.)

"The man in the middle ... A two-time NBA MVP ... A man who is oft-mocked for his soft-spoken and unflappable court presence ... Whose dry sense of humor is overlooked by 99% of the nation and only appreciated by residents of San Antonio, Texas, who get to hear his quips on the local news from time to time ... A man who has never had a single off-court issue over the course of his illustrious 14-year career ... A sure-fire first-ballot Hall of Famer ... From Wake Forest, 6 foot 11 inches ...

"TIM DUNCAN!"

(Unenthusiastic courtesy clap from the instant-gratification-seeking fans who hoped I would overlook Dwight Howard's tumultuous season in Orlando and choose him, David Robinson flashes his Hall of Fame grin as he man-hugs his former teammate.)

"At shooting guard ... A man who is such a good guy that, upon being waived in the 2011 offseason by the New York Knicks, he had to clarify to teams considering him that he was "tired of being the good guy" ... Who has been known through his entire career as a hardworking, motivating presence on and off the court ... The recipient of one Finals MVP (2004) ... Whose smile is as big as the clutch shots he's become known for over the past 14 years ... 6 foot 3 inches from Colorado ...

"CHAUNCEY BILLUPS!"

(Trots out trying not to smile since he doesn't want to be good anymore, fist-bumping Joe Dumars and Ron Harper as he passes them.)

"And at the other guard ... A player who did what was previously thought to have been impossible — brought excitement back to Chicago's NBA franchise after the departure of Michael Jordan ... Who earned his first MVP award in 2010-11 and has led his team to the NBA's best record thus far in 2011-12 ... A man who dreamt of playing for his hometown team since childhood, who has already vowed his loyalty to the city and organization, who is widely known to be one of the most competitive, humblest players across the league ... 6 foot 3 inches ... (and as they say in the Bulls' introductions) FROM CHICAGO!!! ...

"DERRICK ROSE!"

(Low fives to bench players who earned Honorable Mention as the music fades out and the arena lights come back to life.)

And that's the team. Not only are the five players listed seemingly awesome human beings, but I also attest that this team (despite some age issues) could compete with any current NBA roster in the league.

As a fan who longs for sound basketball and even sounder citizens, let's once again hear it for the good guys in the NBA!

Honorable Mention: G Derek Fisher, G Steve Nash, G Ray Allen, F Grant Hill, F Luol Deng, F Dirk Nowitzki

Posted by Louie Centanni at 11:07 AM | Comments (0)

February 11, 2012

Nabokov Back From the Dead as Trade Bait

In the past year, the NHL has seen how incredible goaltending can make a difference in a Stanley Cup run (see Tim Thomas when he's not pontificating on national politics). On the other hand, there has been plenty of evidence to show that inconsistent goaltending can affect much more than save percentage, as it shatters confidence and team defense (see Steve Mason and the scorched-earth start to the Columbus Blue Jackets' season).

That means that with the trade deadline around the corner, Cup contenders and semi-contenders are examining their goaltending options. And what seemed impossible just a few months ago makes for one of the more interesting trade scenarios in the league: what will the New York Islanders do with Evgeni Nabokov?

You remember Evgeni Nabokov, right? Let's take a quick trip down memory lane to see how we got to the end of this bumpy road. For years, Nabokov was synonymous with the San Jose Sharks. Nabokov withstood pretty much all of that team's transitions, from the squads led by Owen Nolan and Mike Ricci to Ron Wilson's coaching tenure to the current Todd McLellan reign. And when it came time to renew his contract, Nabokov and the Sharks parted ways, with the team citing salary cap reasons.

Rumors swirled that the Philadelphia Flyers were ready to acquire Nabokov's rights prior to free agency if he'd be willing to sign on the dotted line. He wasn't, instead he waited.

And waited. And waited. And no NHL teams came, which led to a stint in Russia before heading home — literally — in December of 2010. That led to a January contract with the Detroit Red Wings — except that Nabokov was claimed off waivers by the Islanders, then refused to report, citing a goal of wanting to be in the playoffs.

Whether he was privately seething or not, Nabokov showed up to the 2011-12 Islanders training camp, creating a logjam at the position. With goalies rotating in and out of starts, Nabokov started off October and November with an ugly 1-5 record. While he had a strong run with the Sharks and a lengthy career, it seemed like Nabokov's final NHL tenure would be an afterthought on a solid career.

It didn't turn out that way. Since then, Nabokov's put up strong numbers, including a stellar .931 save percentage. With the trade deadline looming, Nabokov's trade value has never been higher — and with things not going quite the way many contenders wanted between the pipes, Isles GM Garth Snow may be able to command a healthy return for the veteran netminder.

What are the possibilities? The Detroit Red Wings have had a strong campaign from Jimmy Howard, but a broken finger has exposed a lack of depth at the position. The Philadelphia Flyers expected Vezina-worthy goaltending from Ilya Bryzgalov, but instead got a comedian's performance on HBO's 24/7 and not much else. Chicago's tandem of Corey Crawford and Ray Emery has been up and down all season, and neither goalie sports a save percentage well over .900. Even Nabokov's old stomping grounds in San Jose might be an interesting fit — he knows the team, he knows the system, and Antii Niemi has only provided good, not great goaltending.

Besides his strong play of late, Nabokov comes with essentially zero cap restrictions. His one-year contract was for the league minimum, and since NHL cap numbers are crunched on a daily basis, just about any team could theoretically fit him — and with zero commitment to next year.

The only caveat to all of this is that Nabokov has historically proven to be a streaky goalie — the more starts he gets, the better. He also has a track record of decent-but-not-spectacular play during the playoffs. Does adding a would-be starter into a split or backup position do more harm than good? When the NHL season hits the stretch run of March, coaches tend to balance between riding the hot hand in net and pacing the schedule for appropriate rest.

All of these variables come into play as Garth Snow considers his trade options. And with the Islanders on the outside looking in of the playoff race, there's no time like the present to parlay one risk into a big reward.

Posted by Mike Chen at 7:10 PM | Comments (0)

2012 NASCAR Season Predictions

* Kevin Harvick's wife, DeLana, gives birth to a healthy baby boy on July 14th. The couple refuses an anonymous $1,000,000 offer to name the baby "Jimmy John," as well as an anonymous $2,000,000 offer to name the baby "Kyle Hates." Instead, the Harvick's name the child "Richard Childress Harvick."

Then in July during an incident in the New Hampshire Motor Speedway garage area, Kyle Busch is punched by a "Richard Childress" for the second time in less than a year when young Harvick nabs Busch trying to steal candy from a baby.

Kevin Harvick finishes the season with four wins and finishes fourth in the final Sprint Cup standings.

* Brad Keselowski leads at the halfway point of the Daytona 500, earning the $200,000 bonus, and tweets about it as he speeds around the 2.5-mile oval at over 200 miles per hour. NASCAR is not too pleased, and true to their commitment to abolishing secret fines, announces a $25,000 fine for Keselowski on Twitter.

* Kurt Busch, in his new ride for Phoenix Racing, is the laughingstock of the NASCAR garage, and this time, it has nothing to do with his ears. Busch remains bewildered as to the reasons of the laughter, that is, until Roger Penske, a Greek mythology aficionado, explains to Busch the legend of the Phoenix, a mythical firebird that builds a nest, then burns the nest and itself to a pile of ashes, after which a new Phoenix emerges.

Busch is oblivious to the connection, and says he's never burned a nest, but does cop to burning several bridges.

* Four-time Sprint Cup champion Jeff Gordon begins the "Drive For Five," the 11th installment of his annual quest for his fifth Sprint Cup title.

Hendrick Motosports teammate Kasey Kahne simultaneously begins his own "Drive For Five," as he takes over the No. 5 car driven by Mark Martin. Kahne's first order of business in his new car is to adjust the seat. His second order of business is to squelch the retirement rumors inherent in driving the No. 5.

* In honor of the deal with Stewart Haas Racing that ensures Danica Patrick a starting spot in the season's first five races, the Bradford Exchange offers the "Danica Patrick Silver Platter" collectible edition place settings. Each plate is hand-crafted, and comes with a matching spoon, as well as a GoDaddy.com napkin holder.

Patrick starts 29th in the Daytona 500, and finishes 39th after a wreck with Robby Gordon sends her to the garage, where a miffed Gordon demands an apology, and a refund for some worthless merchandise he hastily purchased.

* Boris Said wins the Toyota/Save Mart 350 at Infineon Raceway on June 24th, slipping by Marcos Ambrose on the final lap. In the post-race press conference, Said shockingly announces his retirement from racing in order to pursue his true love, rock and roll. Said introduces his band, the "Said Heads," featuring Said on vocals, Boris Heard on guitar, Boris Smelled on bass, Boris Tasted on drums, and Boris Felt on keyboards.

The "Said Heads" first single, "Greg Biffle Needs a Friggin' Whoopin', And I'm Going to Give it to Him," debuts at No. 198 on Billboard's Top 200 modern rock tracks, and the band later embarks on a Japanese tour opening for Slipknot and GWAR.

* The pairing of Denny Hamlin and new crew chief Darian Grubb is an instant success, as Hamlin wins three of the season's first eight races, including back-to-back wins at Martinsville and Texas. An optimistic Hamlin starts thinking about winning a championship, while a pessimistic Grubb starts thinking about losing his job.

* Bill Elliott's pilots his Walmart-sponsored car to a solid 9th-place finish at the Coke Zero 400 at Daytona on July 7th, a result that proves two things: 1) Elliott's still got it, and 2) you can still get a 27-cent can of kidney beans at Walmart.

* Carl Edwards wins the Quaker State 400 at Kentucky Speedway, dominating a race marked by few lead changes and ever fewer cautions. Luckily, massive 2011 road construction projects alleviate traffic issues at the track, allowing fans speedy egress from the Sparta facility, resulting in some of the weekend's best racing.

Edwards posts five wins in the season's first 26 races, and starts the Chase For the Cup in first, and finishes second to Jimmie Johnson for the Sprint Cup title.

* Dale Earnhardt, Jr. snaps his winless streak by winning the Aaron's 499 at Talladega on May 6th, starting from the pole and leading 198 laps. After a victory lap, Earnhardt drives his No. 88 Chevrolet into the infield, where legions of Junior Nation fans, ironically "amped" up on Diet Mountain Dew, lift the 3,400 machine over their heads, as it becomes the first vehicle in history to "crowd surf."

Earnhardt doesn't win again until December, when he captures NASCAR's most popular driver award.

* Kyle Busch sweeps the weekend at Bristol Motor Speedway in late August, winning the Camping World Truck, Nationwide, and Sprint Cup races.

Busch celebrates with the slowest victory procession in history, a drive which takes him from Bristol to Mooresville, NC at 4 miles per hour. There, Busch cruises at a snail's pace through the winding back roads of rural Iredell County for hours, until a county officer stops him and advises him that "You'll have to go faster." A satisfied Busch complies.

* Prior to the Nationwide STP 300 at Chicagoland Speedway, the Reverend Jesse Jackson voices his protest over the lack of minorities in NASCAR by uttering the phrase "bigotry, bigotry, bigotry" in his invocation, leading to a firestorm of controversy, as well as an Auto-tuned YouTube hit song.

The situation leads to a dialogue between Jackson and Brian France, and the simple-minded NASCAR chairman agrees to make changes, starting the following week in Indianapolis, where France taps the Black Keys to perform before the race.

* Columbia Pictures announces it will film a sequel to Talladega Night: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby titled Talladega Nights 2: The Ballad of an Entirely Fictional Character Loosely-Based on Tony Stewart. A clean-shaven Zack Galifianakis is tapped to play the title role, and immediately begins a strict dietary regimen to gain 15 pounds for the role.

* Dale Earnhardt, Jr. adopts the phrase "One in 12" as the official rallying cry in his quest to capture his first Sprint Cup championship. However, after a late-season slump leaves him in 15th place in the points standings, "One in 12" quickly becomes Earnhardt's rallying cry for simply making the Chase.

* It takes three months for Matt Kenseth to earn his first win of the season, a victory at Charlotte in the Coca-Cola 600, and another two months for people to start caring.

* Jimmie Johnson, feeling that he needs a change, shaves his signature beard and grows a Fu Manchu mustache, which affords him a more serious and sinister look. Johnson becomes the most-feared driver at autograph signings, as well as on the track, where his newfound persona rankles many drivers, including Joey Logano, who is envious of any type of facial hair.

Johnson wins his sixth Cup title with a masterful performance in the Chase, winning four races and wrapping up the title at Phoenix on November 11th.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 1:22 PM | Comments (2)

February 9, 2012

Week 1 College Football Preview

It's that time of year again. I'm sad, you're sad, we're all sad that another football season is in the rearview mirror. Some might cope with the grief by throwing themselves into other activities. I prefer, as I do every year in this space, to look ahead and present my preview of the next college football season, which happens to be the earliest such preview known to man.

Next year will kick off on Thursday, August 30th, with the bulk of games starting Saturday, September 1st. Interestingly, this year there is no Labor Day night game (although that obviously may change), which for the past several years has featured an ACC matchup — this past year, it introduced us to Maryland's winning entry in the Worst Uniforms of All-Time contest.

The first Thursday Night game for ESPN game is usually an SEC affair and usually involves South Carolina, and this year is no different, with the Gamecocks traveling to Nashville to take on Vanderbilt.

These are two teams that seem perpetually on the brink of two different desired realities: for Vanderbilt, to be a solid SEC program that nobody can take for granted. For South Carolina, a division championship and entry into college football's elite. I'm thinking we will be in for a close matchup.

Friday offers an even better game: Boise State travels to Michigan State for their annual showdown with a top-25 foe. Boise has been very successful in these forays, including on the road, but now they will have to do it without Kellen Moore. On paper I think Michigan State looks better, but I can't bring myself to pick against Boise.

Here are some of Saturday's key matchups:

Alabama vs. Michigan (in Dallas)

Obviously the game of the week. Michigan took great strides back to national relevancy last year, winning a BCS game. Is next year the year they snag a Big Ten title and start the year off by beating the national champions? No! It's not!

Clemson vs. Auburn (in Atlanta)

Clemson has been to Atlanta to kick off the season before, in 2008 against Alabama. Clemson was ranked 9th going into the season and Alabama 25th. But the Tide handled Clemson that day and would go on to reach No. 1 in the rankings before relinquishing it to Florida in the SEC Championship Game. This year, no one will be expecting much of Auburn, so the Tigers will hope history doesn't repeat itself.

Tennessee vs. North Carolina State (in Atlanta)

Yes, the organizers of the Chick-Fil-A College Kickoff are making it a doubleheader this year, with an undercard of two programs that have seen better days, Tennessee at North Carolina State. But ESPN is high on the Wolf Pack for the coming year, putting them in their "Way Too Early Top 25." Still, there's an overall talent difference to be made up between an also-ran ACC team and an also-ran SEC team.

Notre Dame vs. Navy (in Dublin, Ireland)

Top o' the mornin'! The lads from Our Lady are travelin' to the home of their mascot's forefathers! How happy the good people of Eire are to be the symbol of a once-great gridironin' program, in toiny punchin' leprechaun form! Faith n' begorrah, the lads better be wearing green right down to their knickers, aye!

Beyond those games, the soup gets pretty thin, even for Week 1. Some other games of semi-note:

UCLA at Rice

I'm circling this game because I happened to watch it the last time these teams hooked up in Houston. I remember it because Rice jumped out to an early lead, and a player started gleefully shouting, "THEY DON'T LIKE TEXAS FOOTBALL!" from the sidelines. Needless to say, UCLA went on to win easily. So we will see if this time Rice can be the avatar of the state they apparently feel they should be.

Southern Miss at Nebraska

Now this is a spicy little meatball. I'm sure when Nebraska scheduled it, it was viewed as a gimme win. But Southern Miss took out Houston from the ranks of the undefeated last year, and will not be an easy matchup for the Cornhuskers at all.

Texas-San Antonio at South Alabama

This game marks the Division 1-A debut for both of these schools. USA (yes, that's how they abbreviate it) will be joining the Sun Belt, and UTSA, along with Texas State, will be joining the now-dilapidated WAC. The WAC now has just seven teams for football, and I thought the NCAA required eight, but apparently not. USA and UTSA went a combined 5-7 last year against 1-AA opponents, and UTSA dropped a game to Division III McMurry, so it's going to be a tough road to hoe for these two programs.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 7:05 PM | Comments (2)

2012 a Record Year For Djokovic?

Put aside everything you heard about Novak Djokovic last year. Best year ever? Longest winning streak? On the way to being amongst the greats and legends?

Two of those are wrong. You can debate all you like, but the facts are the facts. Djokovic's 2011 was, indeed, astounding, and many hailed it as the best year ever. How short some memories are...

Has Roger Federer's 2006 been erased from history? He won three slams, like Djokovic, and reached the final of the other — surpassing Djokovic — and had a far better win-loss record on the season, coming within one win of John McEnroe's record.

The only way in which Djokovic's season was better, was his more impressive start, going 41 matches unbeaten from the start of 2011. But even that falls short of McEnroe's record.

The third is a matter of debate. Could Djokovic join the ranks of the greats? Certainly. Will he? Perhaps, perhaps not. Five grand slams is an impressive feat, but it isn't quite what makes one of the greats. Federer has 16, Sampras has 14, Laver has 11, Borg has 11, and Nadal has 10. Lendl and McEnroe have 8 and 7, respectively.

But no matter how many slams they won, they had something else about them that made them special. Something that made them "great" before they won those slams. McEnroe was famous for his fiery temper on the court. Perhaps it is not the best thing to be remembered for, but it made him stand out. Lendl brought something new to the game in that he made it what it is today, with supreme levels of fitness and strength; he was the first of the modern tennis players. Borg won the French and Wimbledon back-to-back three times, and he won Wimbledon five times in a row, the first man in the modern era to do so.

Each had something more than just a prolific winning streak. Perhaps Djokovic will be known for his impressive consistency or for his aggressive play. Will he be known for his surprising turnaround in his mental game, from retiring all too quickly from imagined injuries and turning into a force that can win five-set matches back-to-back against a world No. 4 and the world No. 2? Will it be the mental change triggered because he hadn't won a slam in three years, and then suddenly someone flicked a switch and he couldn't lose?

Or will he dominate 2012, as well? Will he be the first man since Laver to complete a calendar grand slam? That would surely put him in the history books. It would bump him up to 8 grand slam titles, too. And perhaps he will go one step further this year and surpass McEnroe's record and have the best win-loss record in a single year every recorded. If anyone can do it, Djokovic can.

2011 was the year that made Djokovic. Can 2012 be the year he breaks all the records and becomes a legend? Only time will tell.

So what does he need to do to secure his place among the greats? One thing is for sure, however odd it may seem to say it: he needs to up his game. He is a very consistent player, and works well both defensively, but best when he is on the offense. That is both his greatest strength and his biggest weakness.

His great run in 2011 was halted by a shoulder injury, brought on by the sheer number of matches he was playing. But that is no excuse. Back in 2006, Federer compiled a far superior win-loss record on the season without injury. Perhaps that is down to his graceful, flowing game, which is less physically demanding on the body? If so, there is not much Djokovic can do about it. He can't alter his style of game, especially when it is proving so fruitful.

However, something within his control is the length of his matches. Djokovic spends a lot of time on court, both during points, and in between them. He is on court far more than necessary.

In his Wimbledon final against Nadal in July last year, he spent an average of just over 30 seconds in between points. Aside from the fact that 25 seconds is the maximum time permitted in the rules of tennis (unless a tournament announces otherwise before the event starts), Roger Federer takes on average 7 to 10 seconds between points, making his matches much shorter. There is something to be learned here. Get off the court ASAP, and get the maximum amount of rest after the match is over.

Also, Djokovic has the weapons to finish points a lot quicker than he does. Yes, he likes to build his plays slowly, but he is good enough to put the ball in one corner, then the other, and then come into the net to finish the point off. Djokovic always seems wary of the net. His net play is good — not brilliant, but good enough — and he should use it to finish the points more quickly.

He seems to have Nadal's number, and so, as in 2011, it is safe to think Nadal won't pose too much of a threat. He'll put up a good fight, but the fire is gone. He doesn't believe he can beat Djokovic any more.

The case is not the same with Andy Murray. The pair are friends, and Murray is coming on in leaps and bounds with new coach Ivan Lendl. Murray may be the one who will stand in Djokovic's way in 2012. He is the biggest threat. The Scot may not have won a slam, but he is hungry, and he now has both the physical and the mental game to challenge the top three for the major titles.

As for 2012 being a record-breaking year for Djokovic? I don't think he'll break any records — other than the longest Australian Open final — but he's certain on having another great year.

Posted by Angus Saul at 11:08 AM | Comments (3)

February 8, 2012

Why Murray State Deserves a No. 1 Seed

Murray State is 23-0. They have beaten one ranked team (Memphis) and only face one more before the end of the season (Saint Mary's). They currently hold a No. 7 ranking in the USA Today Poll and a No. 9 ranking in the AP poll. They are ranked ahead of Duke, Michigan State, and Georgetown.

Is this for real?

If they can beat Saint Mary's on Saturday, February 18 and win out, they could climb as high as number four or five if the right teams lose, which would put them at least in the conversation for a No. 1 bid in the NCAA tournament — if they were from a better conference.

In the past 10 years, and historically, No. 1 seeds have come from power conferences. In the past 10 tournaments, only four of the 40 number one seeds have come from outside the six best conferences: the Big 10, Pac 10/12, Big East, ACC, SEC, and Big 12.

The four number ones outside of those six conferences? Cincinnati had a number one seed in 2002 and Memphis had number one seeds in 2006 and 2008 both coming out of Conference USA at the time. Saint Joseph's had the No. 1 seed in 2004 out of the Atlantic 10, but I think most fans would agree that Conference USA and the Atlantic 10 (along with Horizon League and West Coast Conference) are a step above such conferences as the American East, Atlantic Sun, Ivy League, or Murray State's home, the Ohio Valley Conference.

Murray State has always been a tournament favorite of mine, even though they have only won two NCAA tournament games in 14 tournament appearances. They still always seem to provide a show, keeping games close that absolutely should not be close.

Let's look at a few examples. In 1988, they got their first tournament win — doing so as a No. 14 seed — beating number three seed North Carolina State, 78-75. They lost their second game in that tournament to sixth-seeded Kansas 61-58. Not bad. Oh yeah, and Kansas went on to win the national championship that year.

In 1990, they came as close as any 16 seed ever has, taking No. 1 seed Michigan State into overtime, but eventually losing, 75-71.

In 1995, they lost to No. 2 seed North Carolina (who made the Final Four that season), 70-60. In 1997, they lost to No. 2 seed Duke, 71-68. In 2006 they lost to third-seeded North Carolina, 69-65.

And finally in 2010, they got their second win in tournament history, defeating fourth-seeded Vanderbilt, 66-65. They lost their second round matchup by 2 points to fifth-seeded Butler, who of course went on to lose in the national championship game.

The past 25 years has seen some pretty exciting stuff out of Murray State and this season, they are having their best season yet. In arguably their previous best season ever in 2010, a 30-4 record only got them a 13 seed. What will a 31-0 record get them in 2012?

Anything less than a three seed is an insult. But Murray State should be prepared to be insulted. Their current RPI is 48. Behind fellow mid-major tournament hopefuls Long Beach State, Oral Roberts, Harvard, Middle Tennessee, Saint Mary's, Wichita State, and Creighton.
I'm not saying RPI is the end all, be all factor for tournament seeding, but it certainly is a factor and it is not looking good for Murray State in that regard.

But the real question is: how far can Murray State advance in the tournament?

Whether or not they go undefeated, they'll make the tournament. They could be anywhere from a two seed to a 12. I'll guess they end up with a six or seven seed. Can they make it past the second round? Yes.

If they draw a seven or 10 seed, they'll have a tough time making it to the second weekend. If they draw an eight or nine, they'll likely fail, but from seeds of two, three, four, five, six, 11 or 12, I think they'll make their first Sweet 16.

Despite complaints about their weak schedule, Murray State is still undefeated and nobody else can say that in all of Division I men's college basketball. I know, if they played in the ACC, they would not be undefeated.

Much like their counterparts in college football (mid-majors who have gone undefeated) Murray State can't do anything more than win their games. Boise State, Utah, and TCU created noise and controversy in college football by ending seasons undefeated. That noise over the period of a decade may hopefully lead to some sort of playoff system for college football in the near future.

In college basketball, Murray State could end the regular season undefeated, but they'd still have six games to prove themselves. Since that is the case, I honestly see no problem awarding them with a two or a three seed. It honestly would make things more interesting — not that the NCAA tournament needs things to be more interesting.

Look at it this way, if you give Murray State a two seed and the tournament moves forward with no upsets, they'll have to beat a 15 seed, a seven seed, a three seed, and three number one seeds to win the national championship. If they do that, they deserve to win it and I don't think anybody can argue with that.

If you give them a seven seed, again with no upsets, they'll have to beat a 10 seed, a two seed, a three seed, and three number ones — a tougher road, but all roads end the same: three number ones.

The NCAA tournament is setup to prevent teams that are seeded too high from advancing to the national championship game. And there is so little harm in seeding Murray State higher than their RPI might indicate.

Why do they deserve it? When is the last time an undefeated entered the NCAA tournament? It hasn't happened in 20 years! UNLV was the last team in 1991. Before that you'd have to go all the way back to 1979 where Larry Bird and Magic Johnson faced off as undefeated Indiana State lost to Michigan State in the championship game. Meanwhile, Alcorn State went undefeated in 1979 and wasn't even invited to the NCAA tournament.

So in more than 5,000 opportunities from 1992-2011, no Division I school went undefeated in men's college basketball and when one has the potential to do so, we're thinking they should be a … six seed?

Come on! I know they'd probably lose to Kentucky and Syracuse and Missouri, but come on! The Racers might accomplish something that is incredibly rare in today's college basketball environment. They should be rewarded; they must be rewarded.

I've changed my mind. If Murray State enters Selection Sunday undefeated, anything less than a one seed is an insult.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 5:40 PM | Comments (2)

February 7, 2012

The Best Out West?

I know that we're only a third of the way through, but a lot has been packed into the first month of this shortened NBA season. There are so many questions to ponder now that the Super Bowl is done. Are the Celtics turning things around? Will Lob City ready for primetime? Can the Pacers grab home-court advantage in a first-round series? Do the Sixers have enough to hang with the Bulls or Heat? And what's going on with the defending champs?

However, when I consider the whole landscape of the Association, there's one thing above all that I wonder ... could the Northwest Division actually be the best division in the league? Let's examine this from top to bottom.

Despite their relative youth, Oklahoma City has made positive strides beyond what a team this young should be showing. From losing a tough first-round series in 2010 to reaching the Conference Finals in 2011 to their status as Finals favorite now, the rise of the Thunder is about as high as the ball when Kevin Durant releases his shots. Russell Westbrook and James Harden keep piling up the buckets (third in points per game), while Kendrick Perkins (when he's not being posterized by Blake Griffin) helps form a nucleus that is learning to become more formidable on the defensive end.

Next, we get to the first of the "underwhelmers." When Carmelo Anthony left the Rockies for the Garden, we figured that Denver was getting some talent in return. But would they gel with the rest of the Nuggets' core. They affirmed it by finishing fifth in the West. Now they're answering the bell again.

Kenyon Martin and J.R. Smith decided to play in China during the lockout (this week, Martin signed a short-term deal with the Clippers). This means that two of the team's most effective players haven't been on the court all season. However, Denver leads the league in offense (104.6 ppg). Gotta say one thing. George Karl's a hell of a coach.

In third, we may have the most underwhelming team in the NBA. Maybe it's because Deron Williams isn't in town anymore. Maybe it's because Jerry Sloan isn't patrolling the bench. Or maybe it's just us not paying attention. Utah was 10-5 before alternating back-to-back losses with back-to-back wins (assuming they beat the Knicks Monday night). When you look through the roster, there's not a lot of flash to hide your eyes from. But if coach Tyrone Corbin is anything like his former boss, that's just fine.

Portland has had its share of departures over the last few years, including the early retirement of all-star shooting guard Brandon Roy. But with all that the Trailblazers lost, they might have gained something more important ... health (well, except for Greg Oden). LaMarcus Aldridge has been one of the most durable players in the Association. It appears (knock on wood) that the team has multiple centers to plug into the paint. And coach Nate McMillan has the added services of Gerald Wallace to add athleticism and toughness. Going forward, though, you have to wonder who might run the show if Raymond Felton goes down.

Then we get to the Timberwolves. After hitting their head against the ceiling this season, they have finally reached .500. I live in the Twin Cities, and there's a buzz for the franchise that I haven't experienced in my five years here. Who knew that a pair of Ricks might be the key to a return to relevancy?

Rick Adelman is bringing his experience from Portland, Sacramento, and Houston (not going to count those two years in Oakland) to this young team. Ricky Rubio has brought flash and dash to the squad, possibly GM David Kahn's thirst for point guards. Together with Kevin Love, these three have created a dynamic trio that help make the Wolves one of the most watchable shows in the league.

Now that the players have been introduced, do they provide the best conglomeration? These five teams have fared well against the rest of the NBA. The only team with a losing record (limited as the sample size is) to the East would be Minnesota. The only team with a losing to the West is Denver. Does this mean the pace will keep up? Probably not. Does it mean that none of these teams will fade? I doubt it.

In the end, though, I'm just saying that I'll keep my eye to the North and West for the time being. There might be something cooking in that varied air.

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 3:30 PM | Comments (0)

Sports Q&A: Super Bowl XLVI Edition

Why did the Giants win the game?

The Giants won this game because their hands. Wide receivers Hakeem Nicks, Victor Cruz, and Mario Manningham caught practically everything Eli Manning threw their way, and most were difficult catches. Tight ends Jake Ballard and Bear Pascoe were also flawless. But the bigger plays were the fumble recoveries of Chris Snee and Henry Hynoski, who covered fumbles by Bradshaw and Nicks.

Defensively, the Giants recorded seven passes defended, including two by Jason Pierre-Paul, who knocked down two Tom Brady passes at the line of scrimmage. But the biggest play by a Giants defender was Chase Blackburn's interception of Brady's long pass to Rob Gronkowski.

On the other side, dropped passes by Wes Welker, Deion Branch, and Aaron Hernandez helped the Giants cause, as well.

Did Ahmad Bradshaw breathe a big sigh of relief when the Patriots Hail Mary pass fell incomplete?

Yes. Pity poor Bradshaw. He became the first player in Super Bowl history to score a touchdown and feel bad about it.

Obviously, Bradshaw was surprised to see such an easy path through the Patriots defense, and he hesitated before falling backwards into the end zone. I've seen DeSean Jackson do it a lot better, however. Anyway, the score meant the Giants couldn't run the clock down and kick the game-winning field goal as time expired.

Were the Giants concerned of a short field goal attempt going awry? Maybe they were. But their pathetic attempt at converting the two-point conversion left them with a four-point lead, meaning the Pats only needed a touchdown to win, whereas a successful two-point conversion necessitated a Patriots score and an extra point for the win. If the Giants thought that Lawrence Tynes might miss a field goal from extra point distance, then they should have tried a little harder to convert the two-point attempt, and force the Pats to kick the extra point, which they possibly, but not likely, could have missed.

It just seems the Giants didn't consider the contingency of making New England convert the extra point to win the game.

Is Eli Manning now in Tom Brady's class?

Yes, Manning and Brady are in the same class, and in said class, Manning is the valedictorian.

Will the circumstances of the Giants' "12 men on the field" penalty result in a possible change in the rules. New York was penalized five yards, while the Patriots lost valuable time on their final drive.

The NFL will have to review this. The Giants may have unknowingly stumbled upon an effective strategy to combat the two-minute offense. Or maybe they knew what they were doing. Either way, it's a situation that needs addressing. A possible solution: give the offense the option of declining the penalty and having time put back on the clock.

What's with Wes Welker's mustache?

I'm not sure, but he needs to drop it.

NBC's Dan Patrick interviewed Hakeem Nicks and Mario Manningham after the Lombardi Trophy presentation. Was this the least-informative interview of the night?

Yes, it wasn't very informative, but it was a necessary interview. Obviously, Nicks and Manningham played pivotal roles in the game. They combined for 15 catches, and an equal number of utterances of the word "man" during the interview.

How was Madonna's halftime show?

I give it two thumbs up. That's three fingers up if you count M.I.A.'s middle one.

All controversy aside, Madonna's set was interesting for its pageantry, aesthetics, and choreography. Any spectacle featuring an afro'd tightrope performer in a toga and gold sneakers can't go wrong.

But did Madonna really need special guests to feel relevant? In addition to MIA, Madonna welcomed LMFAO, Nicki Minaj, and Cee Lo Green, a.k.a. the "Black Butterbean." She had fewer guests in her book "Sex." Besides, the average viewer probably couldn't tell the difference between a "special guest" and a routine performer.

Speaking of "going wrong," was M.I.A.'s middle finger that big of a deal?

It shouldn't be. Most viewers probably didn't even notice it. And if the did, they didn't care.

If the NFL tabbed M.I.A. to appear in the halftime show without expecting some form of controversy, then they obviously don't know who M.I.A. is. A middle finger by NFL standards may be controversial, but by M.I.A. standards, it's quite tame. This is the same politically-active and outspoken M.I.A. whose most famous song, "Paper Planes," features gunshots in the chorus, and the same MIA whose video/short film for "Born Free" involved genocidal death squads hunting down red-haired people.

M.I.A. claimed "adrenaline and nerves" caused her to raise her middle finger. Bull. It was premeditated. It would be unlike M.I.A. to appear at the Super Bowl and not do something controversial.

Was that Clint Eastwood narrating the Chrysler ad touting Detroit's revival?

Indeed, it was Eastwood, but Clint couldn't quite decide which character he was playing — Dirty Harry Callahan, or Walt Kowalski from Gran Torino.

But give Eastwood credit where credit is due for giving meaning and soul to the Chrysler ad. Let's face it. Eastwood could narrate nursery rhymes, or Nicholas Sparks' novels, and make them sound badass.

What was the lasting image from Super Bowl XLVI?

It's a tie between Tom Coughlin embracing Bill Belichick after the game, and Coughlin embracing Flava Flav after the game.

Tom Brady's wife, supermodel Gisele Bundchen, ripped the Patriots receiving corps for dropping too many balls. Does Brady need to have a talk with his wife about boundaries?

No, Brady doesn't need to have a talk with Bundchen, but Dwayne Johnson "The Rock" does, and he needs to tell her to "know her role and shut her mouth."

Ironically, people tell Brady all the time that the world's most famous supermodel was "quite a catch."

Aside from three or four pivotal catches, what were the Patriots lacking on Sunday?

What New England needed was a wide receiver who is a true deep threat. New England receivers make all their catches in front of defenders. They need a receiver who can get behind a defense. The current Pats offense can spread a defense, but can't stretch one.

What was the night's best commercial?

I'll give it to M&Ms for humor, creativity, and for flaunting the nudity angle in the NFL's face. I'll take a naked M&M any day over a naked Janet Jackson.

Will anyone drink Bud Light Platinum?

No, because judging by the effectiveness of Bud Light Platinum's ad campaign, potential consumers won't know it exists.

Did a platform-boot-wearing Elton John end up in a dungeon with Flava Flav?

Yes, and Sir Elton couldn't be happier. Flav, however, will find it necessary to "Fight the Power."

Can Audi's LED headlights really make vampires vanish?

I don't know, but if they can, then all new Audi owners should drive to the set of the filming of the new Twilight movie.

Has anyone ever watched a GoDaddy.com commercial, then actually visited their website to view the "unrated content?"

I doubt it. I don't know about you, but when I visit a website, I expect the content to be rated, preferably with a letter a far down the alphabet as possible. There's a name for a GoDaddy.com ad that runs during the Super Bowl: the "two-team teaser."

Who will meet in Super Bowl XLVII next year in New Orleans?

The Washington Redskins, led by Peyton Manning, take down the Houston Texans, 28-23.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 1:43 PM | Comments (0)

February 6, 2012

Super Bowl XLVI Rewind

Super Bowl XLVI
February 5, 2011
Indianapolis, Indiana
New York Giants 21, New England Patriots 17

Four years ago, I wrote that Super Bowl XLII was the best I had ever seen. This year's version in Indianapolis wasn't exactly a rematch — both rosters, New England's in particular, have been overhauled — and it wasn't as cleanly played, but it nearly matched the earlier game in fourth-quarter drama. The Giants delivered another game-winning fourth quarter touchdown drive, and the Tom Brady magic that always seemed to carry the Patriots in the early 2000s was nowhere to be found.

Why the Giants Won

The Patriot offense wasn't the same with Rob Gronkowski hobbled, and Eli Manning took what the Patriots gave him. During the regular season, Manning was a down-the-field bomber who led all full-time quarterbacks in yards per completion (13.7). The Patriots almost never blitzed, but they took away the deep pass, and the Giants didn't have a 20-yard pass play until the final drive of the game. Manning averaged just 9.9 yards per completion, but forced to string third-down conversions together and slowly march down the field, that's just what the Giants did.

You don't want to deflect credit after the Giants played so well, but it's tough to imagine this game going the same way if Gronkowski had been healthy. All season, Gronk was the most dynamic tight end in the NFL, really a unique challenge to defenders. He had 8 catches, 101 yards, and a touchdown when these teams met in Week 9, and the Giants were prepared to devote double-coverage to him. But Gronkowski was severely limited by an ankle injury sustained in the AFC Championship Game, and after the first two quarters he wasn't even an effective decoy.

New England lost its best player outside of Tom Brady and had to radically re-work the offense without a multi-dimensional standout like Gronkowski, while the injury took considerable heat off the Giants' defense, which largely contained Brady and the Patriots even without a strong performance by their much-hyped pass rush. The Giants very seldom changed their defensive personnel, especially during the first half, using a nickel defense on nearly every play. The Giants lost a couple tight ends of their own during the game, but there's no comparison between Travis Beckum or Jake Ballard and a game-changer like Rob Gronkowski.

Noteworthy

When football video games were a big part of my life, I used to turn off fumbles. They were so random, being good at the game just didn't matter when the ball was loose. The Giants fumbled three times in Sunday's game, and the scoreboard might have looked a lot different if that oblong ball had bounced a little differently. The Patriots actually recovered the first fumble, but it was nullified by a 12-men-on-the-field penalty. The next two were loose, but both times New York got the right bounce. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good, and in Super Bowl XLVI, the Giants were both.

You don't usually hear much about the Super Bowl punters, but what a game from the Giants' Steve Weatherford. Three times he pinned the Patriots inside their own 10-yard line, including a beauty out of bounds at the four, and the first punt of the game, setting up a safety. If that's a touchback, or a fair catch at the 12, I'm not sure the Giants still win. The Patriots deliberately allowed a touchdown in the fourth quarter rather than letting the Giants run the clock out, but without the safety, the score is 17-13 and New York needs a TD. Maybe they get it and win anyway, but maybe they don't. Huge game from Weatherford.

What Happened

For all the strategic chops of Tom Coughlin and Bill Belichick, the beginning of the game looked like something you might have seen decades ago. The Giants came out in I-formation, sometimes two tight ends, and balanced the run and the pass. The Patriots used a 4-3 defense with very little blitzing and tried to keep everything underneath. The Giants' six-minute drive stalled after a pair of sacks, and Weatherford's punt pinned the Pats at their own six, setting up the safety when Tom Brady was called for intentional grounding in the end zone.

Following a nine-play touchdown drive, the Giants led 9-0, with an incredible edge in time of possession: 11:28 - 0:08. That evened out a little after New England got the ball back, and the Pats got the first possession of the second half, but the Giants ended the night with a 15-minute advantage in time of possession, grinding out their drives while Brady sat on the sideline.

The game appeared to turn just before halftime, shortly after another great play by Weatherford and the Giants' coverage team pinned the Patriots at their 4-yard line. A false start penalty pushed the Pats back to their own 2, but Brady then completed 10 consecutive passes and drove New England 98 yards for a touchdown, giving the Patriots a 10-9 halftime lead, with the ball coming to them to start the second half.

Another touchdown made it 17-9, and all of a sudden it felt like New England might run away with this thing. Even when New York field goals made it 17-12 and 17-15, it still felt like the Patriots were in control. Just when some drama started to creep back in, Danny Woodhead gained 19 yards on a crucial third down, and Brady started marching them down the field, picking up first downs and running out the clock. With under 5:00 to play, the Patriots had a two-point lead and a first down in Giant territory. It looked like they would burn the clock and score, leaving the Giants in a terrible hole.

BenJarvus Green-Ellis was stuffed on a run, but that's another :40. On second down, the dagger. Wes Welker was open downfield — another first down, time off the clock, ball in scoring position. Except Welker dropped the pass. It was a tough catch, one you expect him to make, but hardly an easy play. To me, that felt like a turning point. Rather than sinking the Giants, it gave them hope, and it gave the Patriots serious doubt. It also stopped the clock at 4:06. Another incompletion forced the Patriots to punt, and the Giants took over with 3:53 and a timeout, plus the two-minute warning.

Immediately, Eli Manning hit Mario Manningham on the sideline for a tip-toe catch so close it merited the game's only replay review. Manningham's 38-yard gain was the biggest play of the game by either team. The Giants calmly drove downfield, never even faced a third down, much less fourth, and scored the winning touchdown when it became clear they would otherwise run out the clock and kick a chip-shot field goal. Ahmad Bradshaw tried to stall his momentum and fall outside the goal line, but he instead literally sat into the end zone. A two-point conversion failed, so the Giants led 21-17.

New England got the ball back at their own 20 with :57 remaining, but ran out of time. Belichick's clock management on New York's final drive was really puzzling. What was he saving his timeouts for? It's nice to have them available for your own drive on offense, but that's a luxury. You can't just watch your opponent burn :39 between plays with the Super Bowl on the line.

What Happened to the Patriot Dynasty?

New England's roster is more talented now than it was in 2003 or 2004, and it's much more talented than in 2001, but those Patriot teams won the Super Bowls that have eluded Bill Belichick and his squad for the past eight seasons. The most obvious scapegoat involves the old adage that "defense wins championships." The Pats are now an offense-first team, and it's not a conservative, grind-it-out offense. It's a light up the scoreboard, close the gates of mercy offense.

Maybe there's something to that, but I think it also has a lot to do with the makeup of the team. The 2007 Patriots were very old, especially on defense, and they seemed worn down by the end of the season. The 2011 Patriots are young at many positions, especially on defense, and they frankly don't seem as smart as the Super Bowl teams of the last decade. Those groups compensated for lesser talent with superior strategy and by never beating themselves. This year's Pats dropped passes, didn't wrap up on tackles, ran out of position, and forced throws.

The apparent mental lapses from Brady are most puzzling of all. He's unquestionably a brilliant quarterback, one of the greatest in history and still one of the best in the game today. But he makes mistakes I don't remember ever seeing in his first few seasons, and he seems to make them most often when the stakes are high: big games, critical moments. The announcers blamed his fourth-quarter interception on Gronkowski's ankle, but it was a very poor throw from Brady. A decade ago, that's a ball he would have thrown away. On Sunday, he lofted it down the field, 10 yards behind his receiver, and made it a jump ball with his man out of position to make the catch. And how do you explain the intentional grounding for a safety?

Maybe when he was younger, Brady simply didn't know what he couldn't do. Maybe now he's older and more cynical and recognizes just how hard it is to create the magic he won with in the early 2000s. Maybe he has more faith in his abilities now and tries to force throws that really aren't there. Maybe he has less faith in his defense and feels like he needs to create something out of nothing. Maybe he's just had a few rough games and we're making something out of nothing. But 5-10 years ago, Belichick's Patriots were the ultimate overachievers, thriving on their underdog status and winning against the odds. The last few years, they've repeatedly disappointed in the postseason. I'd like to see the team try to get back to the formula it was so successful with in '03 and '04.

Eli Manning, MVP

Eli was a good choice for Most Valuable Player, probably the same guy I would've picked if I had a vote. But let's not forget about the Giants' defense, which held New England to a season-low 17 points. After the conference championship games, I predicted a 27-20 Giants victory, then spent two weeks doubting the forecast. Did I really predict the Patriots, who averaged 32.1 points during the regular season, would only put up 20 against a Giants defense that allowed 25.0 and ranked in the bottom quarter of the league? No one superstar emerged to deny Manning the MVP, but the Giants' defense outplayed their offense.

Unfortunately, in today's sports world we turn almost immediately from enjoying the moment to the bigger picture, and already some people are now comparing Eli to Peyton Manning. There's no comparison. Eli Manning has played very well in the two most important games of his career, but you don't judge a player by two games. Peyton was one of the two best quarterbacks in the game for over a decade. Let Eli be what he is and enjoy what he's accomplished, but let's stay in the realm of reality here.

In addition to the Super Bowl MVP Award, Aaron Rodgers was announced Sunday as the runaway winner of the league MVP Award, with San Francisco's Jim Harbaugh taking Coach of the Year. The most puzzling selection was Denver LB Von Miller as Defensive Rookie of the Year. He had a nice season, but I'm unclear as to what the voters felt put him ahead of Aldon Smith and Ryan Kerrigan. The NFL also announced before the game that Baltimore Ravens center Matt Birk won this year's Walter Payton Man of the Year Award. This primarily honors off-field contributions, and it's a very high form of recognition.

Announcers, Entertainment and Commercials

NBC's announcing team of Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth had their moments, but overall, I thought they performed below their usual standard, from Michaels repeatedly misidentifying Julian Edelman as Danny Woodhead to Collinsworth criticizing the Giants for keeping Chase Blackburn on the field literally seconds before he made an important tackle. Maybe Al and Cris just let the pressure of the big game get to them. I loved NBC's camera shot of the New England bench when Wes Welker dropped a potentially game-clinching pass with 4:00 left in the game.

Madonna's halftime show was okay. Her fans probably enjoyed it, some of the choreography was interesting, and I'm always happy to see M.I.A. — who apparently flashed a middle finger at some point, which I didn't notice — but I would have loved to see what Madonna might have done with this kind of platform 10 or 20 years ago. The performance got better the longer it went on, though it did seem to go on rather a long time. I wish they would scale back the elaborate sets for the Super Bowl entertainment so the players can have something more closely resembling a normal game experience. The crew did a great job getting the set on and off the field quickly, considering what they were working with. I'd just like to see them working with a little less so it doesn't take 10 minutes to get done.

The Super Bowl advertisements featured a couple of commercials promoting good causes rather than beer or cars, and one of them related to the game in an engaging way. The ad by Mayors Against Illegal Guns might actually have been my favorite of all Super Bowl commercials this year. Michael Bloomberg and Tom Menino showed off nice presence and delivery, the rivalry between them felt real, and I'm a sucker for football tie-ins. Alternatively, I also enjoyed the Ferris Bueller tribute.

At some point in the future, I'd like to see more Super Bowl ads that look like America. We've really moved beyond getting a token black dude into the ad. Let's start getting token Asians and Latins in there, too! The country isn't 90% white, and it speaks poorly of advertisers that so many of them think that's what the country wants to see from the most-watched telecast of the year.

Hall of Fame

The Pro Football Hall of Fame announced the Class of 2012 on Saturday: Jack Butler, Dermontti Dawson, Chris Doleman, Cortez Kennedy, Curtis Martin, and Willie Roaf. This was an interesting year, with no real locks and no first-year eligible candidates selected. All in all, it's a strong class. Dawson was the best center of the '90s, Kennedy was an eight-time Pro Bowler and the 1992 Defensive Player of the Year, and Roaf was a standout for both the Saints and Chiefs, part of one the strongest offenses in recent history with the latter. Chris Doleman was almost an exact contemporary of both Reggie White and Bruce Smith, which I suspect is why he hasn't been enshrined before this, but he was one of the greatest pass rushers ever.

Butler, a Senior Candidate, was first-team All-Pro in three seasons. He is one of only four players with three seasons of nine or more interceptions, gained over 100 INT return yards four times, and twice tied for the NFL lead in interception return touchdowns. Butler was also the subject of one of the all-time great sports descriptions, from Pittsburgh writer Pat Livingston, who described Butler as having "the face of a choirboy and the heart of an arsonist."

With the voters choosing four linemen and a defensive back who's been retired for more than 50 years, Martin is the player best-known to most fans. He's a fine choice, comparable in my mind to Tony Dorsett, who retired as the second-leading rusher in history. Martin is fourth all-time, but he has more "all time" to deal with, especially since Dorsett was among the first RBs to play 16-game seasons. Dorsett probably was never the best running back in the NFL, being overshadowed by Walter Payton, Earl Campbell, and Eric Dickerson. Martin played at the same time as Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders, Terrell Davis and Marshall Faulk, LaDainian Tomlinson and Priest Holmes.

But both Dorsett and Martin were consistently among the best at their position, and did a great deal to help their teams. That kind of decade-long consistency is almost impossible to find at a brutal position like running back, where standout players in their 30s are a rarity. Martin isn't Jim Brown or Payton or Sanders, but he's a fine addition to Canton's Hall of Fame.

The big story, I suppose, is the continued failure of standout wide receivers like Tim Brown, Cris Carter, and Andre Reed in the HOF balloting. I'll address this in depth as we enter the offseason, beginning next week with a review of the finest Hall-eligible wide receivers of the 1990s, including Brown, Carter, and Jimmy Smith.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 11:35 AM | Comments (0)

February 3, 2012

Another Case of the Starburys?

So there's this struggling team in the Big Apple that can't win any games or the fans' respect. The front office makes a big move midseason and works a blockbuster trade for a big star who scores a ton of points, gets the fans excited and believing again. To boot, he's a native New Yorker playing in front of his family and friends. The superstar hits a few game-winning shots, he energizes the team, and gets them into the playoffs for the first time in years.

Then they get swept out of the first round by a much higher seed, much more talented team that exposes everything the Knicks still can't do right, but at least it's something to build on for next year. Then they start the next year flat as a week-old soda and never get back to the playoffs. The superstar eventually gets criticized for his selfish play and run out of town several years later after never leading the team to anything significant.

Sound familiar, Knicks fans? Yes, much of what has been happening with Carmelo Anthony has already happened with exiled Knicks guard Stephon Marbury, who arrived in 2004 with much excitement and hope attached to him, as well. When Carmelo Anthony arrived here, many of us may have lost sight that he was the consolation prize after losing the LeBron James sweepstakes. Yet Anthony's arrival seemed to bring the whole city crashing down in not just anticipation, but celebration. Before he had accomplished anything tangible, Knicks fans around New York were already crying out "thank you for making the Knicks relevant again!" while Skyler Gray's poignant chorus of "I'm Coming Home" poured into every Knicks TV commercial and made some eyes water.

New York bought into the hype. Again. Hook, line, and sinker. Nobody wanted to admit or point out how the Knicks struggled to play .500 ball after the Anthony trade, or how well Raymond Felton, Danilo Gallinari, and company were playing in Denver. After all if you want to make an omelet in the NBA, sometimes you need to trade all your good young talent.

And here we are a third of the way through an abbreviated season that actually is a sprint rather than a marathon as opposed to the old saying, and the Knicks have stumbled out of the blocks, and look winded trying to catch up. They are an 8-14 team that appears for all intents and purposes, lost at sea. They appear to lack the proper leadership from their coach as well as their point guard position, and who knows if that would solve lingering issues this year with 'Melo anyway?

The comparisons to the Marbury scenario eight years ago does not mean I have this team buried for dead and the Anthony era already considered a bust in my mind (only half true, I do have this 2012 team buried for dead), it merely serves as an ominous warning of what could be. The Knicks carelessly released Chauncey Billups in the hopes of acquiring star point guard Chris Paul or assuming that backup Toney Douglas was ready to take the reins after solid play off the bench in '11. Then the team came to the not-so-stunning realization that Douglas is a scorer, not a point guard. Acquisition Mike Bibby has not been able to make any significant contributions and Baron Davis has not been healthy enough to make an impact, either.

For now, the starting spot is being placed in the untested hands of rookie Iman Shumpert, who was booed by disappointed Knicks fans when his name was announced at last year's draft. In the meantime, any hope the Knicks may have had in acquiring Paul down the road seems to have faded as Paul appears quite content to throw up lobs for Blake Griffin and Co. all day in L.A.

After winning four straight games early in the new year, their longest winning streak, the Knicks followed that with six consecutive losses and 10 in their last 12. Curiously, the two lone wins in that stretch were by totals of 33 points, and 27 points, respectively. This tells us that when the Knicks do put forth the effort and put it all together, they can be devastating and lethal (or it just tells us how awful the Pistons and Bobcats really are this year), yet they have been unable to tap into that consistently.

While coach Mike D'Antoni had taken criticism for lacking a defensive mentality, that never stopped his Phoenix teams from racking up great regular season win totals. This proves his system does work at the pro level at least prior to the playoffs. And yet it does not seem to be gelling in New York. This coaching change that needed to happen in last year's offseason cannot happen soon enough. The question is who will be the long-term fix. Or more to the point, can they lure former Knick Phil Jackson out of retirement for the long-term fix? The man who loves to coach superstars and great talent would surely earn the respect of every player in the locker room. After all, he has more title rings than Bill Russell.

Another factor to separate this team from the Marbury era is that these Knicks were founded with Amare Stoudemire, along with Anthony. While both of them struggle defensively, it is still a team built around two stars, not one. With the acquisition of Tyson Chandler a solid one at center, that essentially leaves only the backcourt and the bench that needs improvement.

So while the Knicks remain potentially the same mess they have been for many years now, there appear to be short, simple ways to fix them. The question is whether their front office, now without Donnie Walsh there, will be able to make the proper judgments and the smart moves to fix their glaring weaknesses. While it appears they should have been able to win on paper going into this year, a culture of losing does not die easily.

Posted by Bill Hazell at 3:04 PM | Comments (0)

February 2, 2012

NFL Weekly Predictions: Super Bowl XLVI

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

NY Giants vs. New England (-3)

Super Bowl XLVI pits the Giants against the Patriots in a rematch of Super Bowl XLII, in which Eli Manning and the G-Men stunned Tom Brady and the undefeated Patriots, 17-14. This time, Brady again faces Eli Manning's team, but on Peyton Manning's turf, Indianapolis' Lucas Oil Stadium, home of the finest luxury suite attendants in the NFL, the "Personal Lubricants."

"Paul Revere made the biggest announcement in Patriots history," Brady said, "when he rode his horse through the streets shouting, 'The British are coming! The British are coming!' That is, until Billy Cundiff mounted a goat and traveled the streets of Indy yelling, 'The Patriots are coming! The Patriots are coming!' Cundiff is an albatross on a team of Ravens. He hooked that fateful kick so bad, it ended up in New Hampshire.

"But this Super Bowl isn't about errant kickers. It's about me and Eli. Eli's one-upped me. That's something Peyton can't say. Sure, Peyton is sport's greatest pitchman. He stars in commercials like I do in Super Bowls.

"Peyton didn't monopolize all the football talent among his siblings, just the personality. Eli may have bested me in Super Bowl XLII, but this time, I'll have the last laugh. How can I be so sure? Because I'm employing the 'Ben Roethlisberger Method of Self-Affirmation': I'm locking myself in a bathroom, looking in the mirror, and repeating to myself, 'I will not be denied. I will not be denied.' If history is any indication, I can't lose."

The Giants stormed through the playoffs, knocking off the No. 1-seeded Packers before eliminating the No. 2-seeded 49ers 20-17 in overtime in the NFC championship game.

"There's only one team left that can beat us," Eli Manning said. It's not the Patriots. It's us. How do I know? We've done it seven times already this year.

"With a win, I'll have two Super Bowl wins, both over Tom Brady and the Patriots. Who says I'm not in a class with Brady, besides everyone but me? Most people say the only way I can be in the same class with Brady is if he's teaching it. I'll dispel that notion by winning on Sunday. Or by marrying a supermodel on Monday.

"Surprisingly, Brady and I are afterthoughts to the real quarterback news around the league. No, I'm not talking about Peyton's future as a Colt. It's Tim Tebow. I understand Tebow is still in the news. It appears that Kim Kardashian wants a relationship with the Denver quarterback. Amazingly, they have much in common. Tebow is saving himself for marriage. Kardashian saved herself from marriage. Neither has had sex with Kris Humpries. Both Tebow and Kardashian are fond of the same New Testament book: Peter's. Tebow spreads the word. Kardashian spreads. Everyone, me included, wants to know what happens when the 'Holy Trinity' meets the 'Hole-y Trinity.'"

Super Bowl festivities begin when Kelly Clarkson belts out a rousing and moving rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner" that renders an appreciative crowd hopeful and optimistic. That is, hopeful and optimistic that Jimi Hendrix is not dead, and the NFL will contract with him to perform the anthem on his guitar in all future Super Bowls.

Sufficiently fired up, the Giants win the coin toss and defer, giving the Patriots the ball first, with the intent of unleashing their front four on Brady. Everyone knows the key to the Giants success is pressuring Brady with four rushers, thus dropping seven defenders in coverage, which should be plenty to blanket the underneath routes for which the Pats are famous.

But New England has a counter, and that's the deep ball, and Brady connects with Aaron Hernandez for a long gain that sets up a Stephen Gostkowski field goal. It's 3-0 Patriots.

The G-Men come back with a solid drive of their own, as Manning hooks up with Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks, as two receivers from the wrong side of the tracks find themselves on the right side of midfield. A shovel pass to Ahmad Bradshaw gives the Giants a 7-3 lead.

It's nip and tuck until halftime, and the Giants take a 17-13 lead into the break.

The Super Bowl halftime show begins with Madonna emerging from a giant football at midfield, where she appears lying on a bed in a Tebow jersey. Fittingly, she starts a medley of her hits with "Like a Virgin" as she writhes provocatively on the sheets.

Then she dons a No. 1 Colts jersey and delights the hometown fans with "Luck-y Star," then audibles into "Justify My Love" while ripping off her top to reveal a Peyton Manning jersey featuring the number "?"

Madonna then salutes conference championship patsies Billy Cundiff and Kyle Williams with a touching version of her 1986 hit "Live to Tell."

Then, in her tribute to "official review," Madonna flashes a team of dancers dressed as NFL referees, leading into the song, "Don't Cry For Me, Mike Pereira."

Nikki Minaj joins Madonna onstage for the finale, wearing the "torpedo" brassiere Madonna made famous. The duo test the bounds of censorship when Madonna yanks the laces on Minaj's top, but instead of an R-rated image, the brassiere fires a series of jet-propelled Super Bowl XLVI t-shirts, one of which amazingly strikes a fan wearing a former Cleveland Browns offensive lineman Orlando Brown's No. 77 jersey in the eye.

The Giants take the second-half kickoff and cash in with a Lawrence Tynes field goal. The teams trade field goals, and with time dwindling in the fourth quarter, Brady engineers a 75-yard touchdown drive that ties the game at 23 with a 13-yard pass to Rob Gronkowski.

Unfortunately, New England leaves Manning and the Giants just enough time to maneuver into field goal range, buoyed by Manning's 11-yard scramble on third and long. Tynes drills the 29-yard kick for the win.

New York wins, 26-23.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 5:10 PM | Comments (2)

February 1, 2012

The Best Rookie Quarterbacks Ever

2011 was quite a year for rookie quarterbacks, led by Cam Newton and Andy Dalton. How do they compare to other great rookies of years gone by? What follows is my ranking of the best rookie seasons ever by an NFL quarterback. I'll explain the parameters and methodology in the next couple of paragraphs, but if you just want to see the list, by all means skip ahead. If something seems funny, though, please come back and see if there's an explanation.

The most important note is that I've restricted this to seasons 1950 and later. That eliminates some of the greatest rookie quarterback seasons of all time, but when I drew up my initial list, it was dominated by Benny Friedman (1927), Sammy Baugh (1937), Bob Waterfield (1945), Otto Graham (1946), Charlie Conerly (1948), and arguably several others who were just playing in a much different league, and sometimes a substantially different role on the team.

Friedman was immediately the best passer in the NFL, leading all players in passing TDs and winning first-team All-Pro honors. Baugh, Waterfield, and Graham all won league championships as rookies, and all of them are in the Hall of Fame. Conerly's rookie record for passing TDs stood for 25 years. Those are great seasons, but I don't know how you compare Friedman to Dan Marino or Waterfield to Andy Dalton.

The list also is limited to "true" rookies, not players coming over from other major professional leagues. Most notably, this means that Jim Kelly (1986) is not on the list. The other note is a little trickier, so again, feel free to skip ahead ... the salary structure of the NFL has dramatically changed the way rookies, and highly-drafted rookie quarterbacks in particular, are used. In ages past, they would learn behind a veteran, often play sparingly or not at all their first few years. Today, if you draft a guy number one and pay him $100 million, you want to start capitalizing on your investment immediately. You also need to find out whether or not the guy can play by the time his contract is up; in the free agency era, you can't just hold onto him until you're ready.

So more and more high school prospects are choosing pro-style college offenses, more rookie QBs are playing right away (or almost right away), and a lot of rookie records have been broken in the past decade or so. Does that mean our list should lean heavily towards recent drafts? Playing 12 games and playing 16 aren't the same thing, and it's easy for the list to reflect that. On the other hand, if this is supposed to be a list of the best rookie quarterbacks ever, do we really want a top-10 that is mostly guys who are still playing? I've tried to balance that, concentrating on what players do with the opportunities available, but giving weight to extra playing time. On a related note, postseason accomplishments are considered, but not definitive. I don't want to punish anyone for being drafted by the wrong team, or unduly reward those who got to play on teams that were already good.

Thanks for your patience — let's get to the list. Starting with a few honorable mentions, mostly recent guys:

Eddie LeBaron, 1952 — 1,420 yards, 14 TD, 65.7 rating. Fourth in NFL in passing yards, tied for third in TD/INT differential.

Johnny Unitas, 1956 — 1,498 yards, 9 TD, 74.0 rating. Only one other quarterback finished the season with more yards and a better passer rating.

Jim McMahon, 1982 — 1,501 yards, 9 TD, 79.9 rating. Started seven games in a strike-shortened season and ranked 8th in the NFL in passer rating.

Warren Moon, 1984 — 3,338 yards, 12 TD, 76.9 rating. A rookie in name only, Moon was 27 when he moved to the Oilers after winning five Grey Cups in seven seasons with the CFL's Edmonton Eskimos.

Dieter Brock, 1985 — 2,658 yards, 16 TD, 82.0 rating. Even older than Moon (34) and also a veteran of the CFL, Brock ranked 3rd in the NFL in passer rating and led the Rams to the NFC Championship Game.

Peyton Manning, 1998 — 3,739 yards, 26 TD, 71.2 rating. Started all 16 games and broke rookie records for passing yards and TDs, but also led the NFL in interceptions (28).

Marc Bulger, 2002 — 1,826 yards, 14 TD, 101.5 rating. Dan Marino and Bulger are the only rookie QBs in history to throw twice as many touchdowns as interceptions in at least 100 attempts.

Joe Flacco, 2008 — 2,971 yards, 14 TD, 80.3 rating. Ranked 20th in passing yards and 22nd in rating, but led the Ravens to two playoff wins and the AFC Championship Game.

The top 10 rookie quarterbacks of all time:

10. Charlie Batch, 1998 Detroit Lions
2,178 passing yards, 11 TD, 6 INT, 83.5 rating

Peyton Manning got the glory. Manning was the top overall pick in the draft, he started every game, and he threw a ton. Batch, playing with Barry Sanders on a team that had made the playoffs the year before, didn't start in Week 1 and didn't have to air it out on every down, so his gross numbers fell far short of Manning's. As a product of I-AA Eastern Michigan, Batch generated almost no publicity compared to Manning, who was a star at Tennessee and the son of a Pro Bowl quarterback.

But while Manning threw the most interceptions in the league, Batch recorded the highest rookie passer rating in 15 years (Dan Marino) and set a rookie record for interception percentage (1.98%) that still stands. The first touchdown of Batch's career was a 98-yard score to Johnnie Morton in Week 5. The Lions went 5-11 that season, but they were 5-7 with Batch as starter, and 0-4 without him.

9. Jim Plunkett, 1971 New England Patriots
2,158 passing yards, 19 TD, 16 INT, 68.6 rating

Plunkett's tenure in New England was generally a disappointment, but his rookie season showed great promise. Plunkett ranked 12th in the NFL in passer rating, 10th in passing yards, and tied for 2nd in passing TDs. His TD/INT differential (+3) tied for 4th-best in the league, behind only Roger Staubach, Bob Griese, and Roman Gabriel. Plunkett also rushed for 210 yards, with a 4.7 average, and the Patriots improved from 2-12 to 6-10. Plunkett was a consensus choice for AFC Rookie of the Year.

For years, that rookie season looked to be the lone bright point in a disappointing career. It was his best passer rating until 1980, his first Super Bowl year with the Raiders. It was a career-high for passing TDs until 1983, the second Super Bowl. It was his best TD/INT differential until 1986, Plunkett's final season in the NFL. The four-game improvement in the standings also represented the biggest season-to-season turnaround for any team in Plunkett's career (not including the 1982 strike season). Coming out of Stanford as the top overall pick in the draft, Plunkett seemed to feed on confidence. He played well early, realized he wasn't a miracle-worker, and re-surfaced as an effective player with the Raiders, where he didn't have to be a savior. But for one year, Plunkett played like he was going to be a big, big star.

8. Marlin Briscoe, 1968 Denver Broncos
1,589 passing yards, 14 TD, 13 INT, 62.9 rating

The first African-American starting quarterback in NFL or AFL history, Briscoe played valiantly for an awful team. The Broncos had gone 3-11 the year before, and the team's other QBs went 3-6 in 1968. Briscoe's 2-3 record as starter was never going to drive Denver to the playoffs, but he gave the team hope, and brought different options to the table in a way not entirely dissimilar from Tim Tebow almost half a century later.

Briscoe was a natural athlete, nicknamed Marlin the Magician, and his legendary rookie season was the product of a unique skill set. He gained 308 yards and 3 touchdowns rushing, both good for 2nd-best on the team, and led the AFL in yards per completion (17.1). After his rookie season, Briscoe switched to wide receiver, including back-to-back years for the 1972-73 world champion Dolphins. As of 2012, the Broncos' rookie record for TD passes is still held not by John Elway or Jay Cutler, but by Marlin Briscoe.

7. Andy Dalton, 2011 Cincinnati Bengals
3,398 passing yards, 20 TD, 13 INT, 80.4 rating

In 2010, the Bengals went 4-12. In the offseason, they parted ways with Carson Palmer and Chad Ochocinco, and improbably, the team more than doubled its win total, going 9-7 and making the playoffs for only the third time in the last 20 years.

Dalton became one of only seven rookie QBs to pass for 3,000 yards and one of only eight with 20 or more touchdowns. The only players to do both are Dalton, Cam Newton, Peyton Manning, and Jim Kelly (if he counts as a rookie in 1986). Dalton's +7 TD/INT differential is the third-best ever for a rookie, trailing only Dan Marino (+14) and Marc Bulger (+8). But Marino took over a team that had played in the Super Bowl the year before, and Bulger played for the Greatest Show on Turf Rams, with Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce and Marshall Faulk. Rookie WR A.J. Green had a great season, but Dalton did this without a lot of weapons.

6. Joe Namath, 1965 New York Jets
2,220 passing yards, 18 TD, 15 INT, 68.7 rating

The AFL Rookie of the year in 1965, Namath immediately justified the hype coming out of college. The bidding for Namath by both leagues was so fierce that it is often cited as a driving factor in the common draft that began in 1967. Bear Bryant called Namath the greatest athlete he ever coached, and Broadway Joe was an immediate standout both on and off the field when he came to the pros. The Jets' home attendance increased by more than 12,000 per game when they drafted Namath.

As a rookie, Namath ranked 3rd in the AFL in passer rating, behind only Len Dawson and John Hadl, and he connected immediately with star receiver Don Maynard. In '65, Maynard posted by far his highest reception and yardage totals in the last five years, and set a career high for TD receptions (14), tying a Jets record that still stands. Namath's stats never told the full story of his greatness, though. Even coming off knee surgery as a result of an injury at Alabama, Namath's ability to dominate as a professional was never in question, and his stunningly quick release in particular remains legendary. He was the first rookie quarterback ever selected to the league All-Star game, in the AFL or NFL.

5. Matt Ryan, 2008 Atlanta Falcons
3,440 passing yards, 16 TD, 11 INT, 87.7 rating

Much like Dalton three years later, Ryan was instrumental in turning around a woebegone franchise. As a quick aside, I've been a sportswriter for 10 years, and that's the first time I've ever used the word woebegone. It might be the last. Anyway, Ryan finished his rookie season with the 4th-highest passer rating, 2nd-highest completion percentage, and 2nd-most passing yards ever by a rookie. He's 4th now in yardage, but even with all the great numbers put up by Newton and Dalton in 2011, neither matched Ryan's efficiency. Also, a stat few people notice, Ryan took only 17 sacks all season, which is fantastic.

The 2007 Falcons went 4-12 and were outscored 414-259. In '08, Ryan helped the Falcons to an 11-5 record and their first playoff berth since 2004. The team scored 391 points, a 50% increase over the previous season. The first pass of Ryan's career was a 62-yard touchdown to Michael Jenkins, and he went on to win Offensive Rookie of the Year honors, beating out another 16-game starter at QB (Joe Flacco), three 1,000-yard rushers (Matt Forte, Chris Johnson, and Steve Slaton), an electrifying receiver and return man (DeSean Jackson), and two Pro Bowl offensive linemen (Jake Long and Ryan Clady).

4. Ben Roethlisberger, 2004 Pittsburgh Steelers
2,621 passing yards, 17 TD, 11 INT, 98.1 rating

The first quarterback in 34 seasons to win Offensive Rookie of the Year, Roethlisberger broke the rookie record for passer rating and went 13-0 as a starter in the regular season, leading Pittsburgh to a 15-1 record and an appearance in the AFC Championship Game. Big Ben doesn't rank at the top of the list because his role in the offense was somewhat limited. The 2004 Steelers had the league's best defense, a good offensive line, and a powerful running game. Roethlisberger didn't have to be the savior, and that's unusual for rookie quarterbacks. Good teams don't usually play rookies — they have an established starter. Rookies play out of desperation.

Roethlisberger made the most of his opportunities. No one will put Ben's rookie highlights on the same reel with Joe Namath's, but the Miami University product played smart, tough, efficient football, and delivered exactly what his team needed. Even in an era where passing records are being broken right and left, Roethlisberger's rookie record for passer rating could last for a very long time. He also holds the rookie record for completion percentage (66.4%).

3. Dan Marino, 1983 Miami Dolphins
2,210 passing yards, 20 TD, 6 INT, 96.0 rating

For years, Marino's 1983 season has been the gold standard for all rookie QBs, and I'm sure some fans will think I'm crazy for not ranking him best of all. Honestly, he might be — sorting out the top three was a nightmare. How do you rank anybody ahead of Dan Marino? This is particularly painful, because Marino was my favorite player in the '80s. You want him number one, you'll get no argument from me.

It seemed like Marino broke every efficiency record for rookie quarterbacks. He set the record for completion percentage, shattered the record for passer rating, and somehow finished with twice as many TD passes (20) as sacks (10). I'm calling it right now: that will never be matched. In 2011, no quarterback had twice as many TDs as sacks, much less a rookie. Cam Newton and Andy Dalton combined for 41 TD passes and 59 sacks. And that's not bad! Marino was just other-worldly, right from the start. He was the first rookie quarterback to make a Pro Bowl.

So why isn't he number one? Because he only started nine games. The Dolphins were AFC Champions in 1982, and rookies play out of desperation. The Dolphins weren't desperate, they were great. Why risk screwing anything up with a rookie quarterback, no matter how promising? But when Marino got to play, he never looked back. This doesn't affect the rankings, but Marino also had by far the greatest sophomore season of any QB in NFL history, obliterating the NFL records for passing yards and passing TDs, with a 108.9 rating that nearly broke that record, as well. He was as good as any passer in the league from the first day he set foot on the field.

2. Cam Newton, 2011 Carolina Panthers
4,051 passing yards, 21 TD, 17 INT, 84.5 rating

Newton's passing statistics in 2011 were good. He was top-10 in passing yardage, breaking Peyton Manning's rookie record by nearly 300 yards. And yet, Newton's passing stats don't nearly communicate his contributions, because he also turned in probably the finest rushing season ever by a rookie quarterback: 706 yards, 5.6 average, 14 touchdowns. Newton's 35 total TDs put him in another stratosphere. No other rookie QB has even approached that.

The 2010 Carolina Panthers had one of the worst offenses of all time. They ranked last in the NFL in yards, yards per play, passer rating, almost everything. In particular, they ranked last by a huge margin in passing yardage (2,289), more than 600 yards behind 31st place — the league-leading Colts actually doubled Carolina's passing yardage. The Panthers scored just 196 points, 75 behind 31st place, and eight NFL teams scored more than twice as many. They are one of only about a dozen teams to score under 200 points in a 16-game season.

The 2011 Panthers, with Newton, ranked 7th in yards and 5th in scoring (406). I'm not aware that any other team has ever doubled its point total from one season to the next (without extending the schedule). The difference was Cam Newton. With both his arm and his legs, he totally turned around the most moribund offense in the league. It's an astonishing accomplishment, and one of the very finest rookie performances ever.

1. Greg Cook, 1969 Cincinnati Bengals
1,854 passing yards, 15 TD, 11 INT, 88.3 rating

Cook's rookie season is the stuff of legend. Dr. Z's 2001 story on Cook, written nearly three decades after an undiagnosed shoulder injury ended the QB's career, is one of the finest pieces of football journalism you're ever likely to read.

Cook lit up the league in '69. The Bengals, just one year removed from expansion, started 3-0. Cook threw six TDs and ran for another, with only three picks. His passer rating was 111.1. But in that third game, Cook tore his rotator cuff. He felt the shoulder pop, and missed a total of three games, but the torn rotator cuff was never diagnosed, and he continued to play. Cook led the AFL in completion percentage, yards per attempt, yards per completion, and passer rating. He and Kurt Warner are the only players in history to lead the league in both completion percentage and yards per completion — and Cook did this as a rookie, with a receiving corps led by the tight ends. Cook, playing only 11 games, beat out O.J. Simpson and Carl Garrett to win AFL Offensive Rookie of the Year.

Cook's 88.3 passer rating was the record until Marino broke it 14 years later, with a good team and very different passing rules. Cook's rookie record for yards per attempt (9.41) may never be broken.

***

I suspect we'll see more and more great rookie QBs in the future, with more and more rule changes favoring passers, more pro-style college offenses preparing rookies to play right away, and ever-increasing pressure for young players to hit the field early. I just hope Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III don't force me to re-write this project next year. The top 10 rookie quarterbacks in NFL history, 1950-2011:

1. Greg Cook, 1969 Cincinnati Bengals
2. Cam Newton, 2011 Carolina Panthers
3. Dan Marino, 1983 Miami Dolphins
4. Ben Roethlisberger, 2004 Pittsburgh Steelers
5. Matt Ryan, 2008 Atlanta Falcons
6. Joe Namath, 1965 New York Jets
7. Andy Dalton, 2011 Cincinnati Bengals
8. Marlin Briscoe, 1968 Denver Broncos
9. Jim Plunkett, 1971 New England Patriots
10. Charlie Batch, 1998 Detroit Lions

Posted by Brad Oremland at 1:44 PM | Comments (1)