Maybe I'm just mean, but I think everyone's lost their minds. According to an ESPN poll, 78% of the nation thinks that the excessive celebration penalty called against University of Washington quarterback Jake Locker was a bad call (most of the 22% who voted otherwise, not surprisingly, appear to be from the state of Utah).
Maybe I'm missing something here.
According to referee Larry Farina, "After scoring the touchdown, the player threw the ball into the air and we are required, by rule, to assess a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. It is a celebration rule that we are required to call. It was not a judgment call." This statement was backed up by ESPN's SportsCenter, which aired the portion of the rule book in question. The rule is rather clear: no throwing the ball in the air after scoring a touchdown.
Period. The end.
But after airing the rule, several ESPN personalities, including Mark May, forcefully commented that they thought the referee made a horrible call. Given reasons included the following:
-they followed the language of the law, not the spirit of the law
-the refs shouldn't be allowed to decide the outcome of the game/the refs shouldn't be allowed to make calls in key situtations
-Locker had just made a great play
-the rule is stupid
Well, Locker had just made a great play, and perhaps the rule is stupid. Unfortunately, I'm rather sure there's nothing in the rule book stating that refs can pick and choose which rules they enforce. I'm also rather sure there's nothing in the rule book stating that the refs can choose not to enforce rules after great plays. But hey, I've never read the rule book cover to cover, so, you know, maybe those statements are in there somewhere. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.
Perhaps the spirit of the law is to reduce taunting, but that's not explicitly stated in the rule. It's clear that throwing the ball high in the air is not allowed.
As far as whether or not the refs should be allowed to decide the outcome of the game/the refs shouldn't be allowed to make calls in key moments is concerned...I've never understood this argument. Are you telling me that the call would have been legit had it happened in the first quarter? Or a mere five minutes earlier? Isn't it just as unfair to call a penalty at certain times and not other times? I've always been baffled by this argument in basketball, when people argue that the refs shouldn't be allowed to call fouls at the end of a close game. Furthermore, there appears to be a universal assumption that had the PAT been kicked from the standard 15 yards instead of 27 yards, the block wouldn't have occurred. I guess we'll never know, but I'm not sure I buy that assumption.
Would a Washington win have been great? Yes. Do I feel sorry, once again, for Ty Willingham? Yes. But I'm not going to hang the refs for the game's outcome. They were just doing their jobs. The rule can be reviewed during the offseason.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Brett Favre? Whatever. Brandon Jennings is the story.
For starters:
At this point, I'm not sure I care what happens between Brett Favre and the Packers. Is anyone surprised that he's changed his mind about retiring? No. Is anyone surprised that the Packers are now between a rock and a hard place? No. Let's just get him in a Panthers jersey and call it a day. Yeah, right.
Okay then, now:
Has an 18-year-old kid just opened the floodgates for reforming the NCAA/NBA system? The potential is certainly there. By signing with Pallacanestro Virtus Roma Oak Hill Academy's Brandon Jennings has proved what everyone should have known all along: American players don't need to go to college in order to go pro and make a lot of money. Hell, they don't even need to go to the NBA in order to go pro and make a lot of money.
I'll admit, I have, in the past, been one of those people who griped about players leaving college early for the NBA. I liked the idea of the one-year rule. Why? Because I'm a college basketball fan, and college basketball is less fun when your favorite players don't stick around for all four years, or don't show up on campus at all. Had the one-year rule been in effect back in 1996, oh, can you imagine: Antawn Jamison, Vince Carter, Ed Cota, and Kobe? Together? In the Dean Dome? Oh, I salivate at the thought.
But you know, Kobe's done rather well for himself without the NCAA, and that's really the point here. Was college going to benefit him at all? Does college benefit basketball players who don't want to be there, but do want a chance to play pro basketball?
Not necessarily.
College basketball should be played by college students who want to play basketball, but would probably be on campus even if they didn't. It should not be played by basketball players who would never consider going anywhere close to another academic institution after high school graduation if it weren't for the current system of making it to the NBA.
But the one-year suits both the NCAA and the NBA quite well. The NCAA makes money off of the talented players, many of whom probably don't want to be in college anyway. NCAA games make NBA scouting easy, or at least a lot easier than locating all of the high school gyms the scouts would otherwise need to visit.
And, theoretically, the rule suits the players. Go to college. Get the education that you need. Get more exposure. You'll be better off, really.
It's true that many college players benefit from the exposure. But there are some--Kobe, LeBron--who have done just fine without it. Do basketball players need a college education? Not if they don't want one. Does the NCAA need those same players in order for them to make the amount of money that they're accustomed to making? Absolutely.
But if they don't go to college, what will they do once they retire from basketball? I would buy this point if it weren't for the numerous people I know who willingly, without the promise of NBA fame and fortune, spent an average of four years obtaining completely useless degrees. Are you telling me that upon retiring from the NBA, a player is going to easily transition into the mundane world of non-NBA players because he has a Communication Studies degree (or in the case of Michael Jordan, a Geography degree)?
I don't think so. Brandon Jennings doesn't seem to think so. I applaud him, and am waiting to see if other high school players follow his lead.
At this point, I'm not sure I care what happens between Brett Favre and the Packers. Is anyone surprised that he's changed his mind about retiring? No. Is anyone surprised that the Packers are now between a rock and a hard place? No. Let's just get him in a Panthers jersey and call it a day. Yeah, right.
Okay then, now:
Has an 18-year-old kid just opened the floodgates for reforming the NCAA/NBA system? The potential is certainly there. By signing with Pallacanestro Virtus Roma Oak Hill Academy's Brandon Jennings has proved what everyone should have known all along: American players don't need to go to college in order to go pro and make a lot of money. Hell, they don't even need to go to the NBA in order to go pro and make a lot of money.
I'll admit, I have, in the past, been one of those people who griped about players leaving college early for the NBA. I liked the idea of the one-year rule. Why? Because I'm a college basketball fan, and college basketball is less fun when your favorite players don't stick around for all four years, or don't show up on campus at all. Had the one-year rule been in effect back in 1996, oh, can you imagine: Antawn Jamison, Vince Carter, Ed Cota, and Kobe? Together? In the Dean Dome? Oh, I salivate at the thought.
But you know, Kobe's done rather well for himself without the NCAA, and that's really the point here. Was college going to benefit him at all? Does college benefit basketball players who don't want to be there, but do want a chance to play pro basketball?
Not necessarily.
College basketball should be played by college students who want to play basketball, but would probably be on campus even if they didn't. It should not be played by basketball players who would never consider going anywhere close to another academic institution after high school graduation if it weren't for the current system of making it to the NBA.
But the one-year suits both the NCAA and the NBA quite well. The NCAA makes money off of the talented players, many of whom probably don't want to be in college anyway. NCAA games make NBA scouting easy, or at least a lot easier than locating all of the high school gyms the scouts would otherwise need to visit.
And, theoretically, the rule suits the players. Go to college. Get the education that you need. Get more exposure. You'll be better off, really.
It's true that many college players benefit from the exposure. But there are some--Kobe, LeBron--who have done just fine without it. Do basketball players need a college education? Not if they don't want one. Does the NCAA need those same players in order for them to make the amount of money that they're accustomed to making? Absolutely.
But if they don't go to college, what will they do once they retire from basketball? I would buy this point if it weren't for the numerous people I know who willingly, without the promise of NBA fame and fortune, spent an average of four years obtaining completely useless degrees. Are you telling me that upon retiring from the NBA, a player is going to easily transition into the mundane world of non-NBA players because he has a Communication Studies degree (or in the case of Michael Jordan, a Geography degree)?
I don't think so. Brandon Jennings doesn't seem to think so. I applaud him, and am waiting to see if other high school players follow his lead.
Friday, March 14, 2008
It's Funny Because it's True
I'm about three-fourths of the way through Will Blythe's To Hate Like This is to be Happy Forever, a Tar Heel fan's exploration of the Carolina-Duke rivalry. Thus far, I highly recommend it. I bought it at Border's last week, sat down at the adjoining coffee shop, and had to resist the urge to laugh out loud by page 3. It's funny because it's true, I thought. But there were numerous study groups huddled around their tables; caffeine-addicted students trying to get their assignments done. So I sat in silence, but had a big smile on my face the whole time. The book is so accurate that I thought my friend Johnny had already read it. I told my husband that Johnny had lifted all of his funny lines from this book. Then my husband talked to Johnny and discovered that Johnny in fact had not read the book. Weird.
One aspect of the book that I like is Blythe's comparing and contrasting--not just Carolina v. Duke, but also Southern vs. Northern, Democratic vs. Republican, and black vs. white. He notes that sports coverage in the south is much more polite than sports coverage in the north; for various reasons, mean-spirited sports coverage just doesn't fit into southern culture. And I thought, this is why I never panned out as a journalist, or as a blogger for that matter. I'm too polite, too superstitious to say exactly what I think about any teams, but especially my teams, to a public audience. Sure, I'll tell my opinions to your face if you ask (and oftentimes even when you don't ask), but it's completely different when addressing a mass audience. I suppose it's a passive-aggressive tactic--I'll say what I like to my friends, but to say anything too loudly is just mean (although I have made my distaste for Billy Packer known. But then again, who hasn't?).
So anyway, if you haven't already read this book, you should.
With all that being said, what really happened to Sidney Lowe and the N.C. State Wolfpack this season? I mean, I thought they came into the season a bit overrated, what with them having no suitable replacement for Engin Atsur, but who thought that they'd finish dead last in the ACC?
What seems obvious to absolutely everyone is that the Pack played with no heart. Maybe it's a one-year chemistry problem, and everything will be back on track next year. What worries me is the Pack's problems, at least to someone with absolutely no access to the Wolfpack athletic department or any of the players (yeah, that's a big disclaimer...), appear to be very similar to the problems Matt Doherty had while he was coaching Carolina. Let's think about it:
Doherty Year #1 (2000-2001): Team overachieves, and Doherty wins Coach of the Year, despite the team taking a bit of a nosedive during the second half of the season. This didn't seem like much of a problem until...
Doherty Year #2 (2001-2002): A team depleted of their previous talent finishes with the worst record in school history. Everyone knew the team would not be of the usual Carolina caliber, but 8-20? Players start transferring to pretty much any other school that will take them.
Doherty Year #3 (2002-2003): Team wins 19 games and makes it to the NIT with the help of a few super freshman. A much better team than the previous year, but the players are still unhappy. More players (including Sean May) threaten to transfer, and that's all she wrote for Doherty's career at UNC.
Now here's Sidney's resume at NCSU:
Lowe Year #1 (2006-2007): With the help of Sidney's red blazer, Wolfpack beats Tar Heels for the first time in who knows how long. Fans are so happy about this win that the Pack missing the NCAA Tournament seems to not matter. Next year promises to be better, despite the absence of Atsur...
Lowe Year #2 (2007-2008): Expected to finish third in the ACC, Pack fans soon discover that Atsur's absence is more of a problem than originally anticipated. Okay, 15-16 isn't exactly 8-20, but team clearly lacks chemistry and heart, highlighted by a 31 point loss to UNC. Fans begin to wonder what happened to Herb Sendek.
Lowe Year #3 (2008-2009): TBD, but hopefully won't end up like Doherty's Year #3. As I've already noted, I have no reason to think that Lowe has a revolt on his hands other than what I've seen on the court. And even that doesn't necessarily mean anything. But based on what we all saw happen at Carolina, it does make you (okay, me) wonder what's going on.
To be continued next season...
One aspect of the book that I like is Blythe's comparing and contrasting--not just Carolina v. Duke, but also Southern vs. Northern, Democratic vs. Republican, and black vs. white. He notes that sports coverage in the south is much more polite than sports coverage in the north; for various reasons, mean-spirited sports coverage just doesn't fit into southern culture. And I thought, this is why I never panned out as a journalist, or as a blogger for that matter. I'm too polite, too superstitious to say exactly what I think about any teams, but especially my teams, to a public audience. Sure, I'll tell my opinions to your face if you ask (and oftentimes even when you don't ask), but it's completely different when addressing a mass audience. I suppose it's a passive-aggressive tactic--I'll say what I like to my friends, but to say anything too loudly is just mean (although I have made my distaste for Billy Packer known. But then again, who hasn't?).
So anyway, if you haven't already read this book, you should.
With all that being said, what really happened to Sidney Lowe and the N.C. State Wolfpack this season? I mean, I thought they came into the season a bit overrated, what with them having no suitable replacement for Engin Atsur, but who thought that they'd finish dead last in the ACC?
What seems obvious to absolutely everyone is that the Pack played with no heart. Maybe it's a one-year chemistry problem, and everything will be back on track next year. What worries me is the Pack's problems, at least to someone with absolutely no access to the Wolfpack athletic department or any of the players (yeah, that's a big disclaimer...), appear to be very similar to the problems Matt Doherty had while he was coaching Carolina. Let's think about it:
Doherty Year #1 (2000-2001): Team overachieves, and Doherty wins Coach of the Year, despite the team taking a bit of a nosedive during the second half of the season. This didn't seem like much of a problem until...
Doherty Year #2 (2001-2002): A team depleted of their previous talent finishes with the worst record in school history. Everyone knew the team would not be of the usual Carolina caliber, but 8-20? Players start transferring to pretty much any other school that will take them.
Doherty Year #3 (2002-2003): Team wins 19 games and makes it to the NIT with the help of a few super freshman. A much better team than the previous year, but the players are still unhappy. More players (including Sean May) threaten to transfer, and that's all she wrote for Doherty's career at UNC.
Now here's Sidney's resume at NCSU:
Lowe Year #1 (2006-2007): With the help of Sidney's red blazer, Wolfpack beats Tar Heels for the first time in who knows how long. Fans are so happy about this win that the Pack missing the NCAA Tournament seems to not matter. Next year promises to be better, despite the absence of Atsur...
Lowe Year #2 (2007-2008): Expected to finish third in the ACC, Pack fans soon discover that Atsur's absence is more of a problem than originally anticipated. Okay, 15-16 isn't exactly 8-20, but team clearly lacks chemistry and heart, highlighted by a 31 point loss to UNC. Fans begin to wonder what happened to Herb Sendek.
Lowe Year #3 (2008-2009): TBD, but hopefully won't end up like Doherty's Year #3. As I've already noted, I have no reason to think that Lowe has a revolt on his hands other than what I've seen on the court. And even that doesn't necessarily mean anything. But based on what we all saw happen at Carolina, it does make you (okay, me) wonder what's going on.
To be continued next season...
Monday, February 11, 2008
Recovering from a fortnight of basketball
Well, really it was only regulation and two overtime periods, but one of the FSN announcers referred to it as a "fortnight of basketball." I figure this either means that he doesn't know what the word "fortnight" means, or someone's been living in a time warp.
I always hate the UNC-Clemson game in Chapel Hill because of that gosh-darn (now) 53-game winning streak. It's more stressful than the Duke games. And for the first 37 minutes or so of last night's game, it looked like that streak was going to end. Let me tell you what saved the Heels. It wasn't the shooting, or the rebounding, or any semblance of defense. Nope, it was my friends' 3-year-old son.
Disclaimer: I know that at some point on this blog I've mentioned that I'm quite superstitious. If you don't go for superstitions, you might want to stop reading now.
So we spend 37 minutes of the game losing, for various reasons that I'm sure you find on other blogs. And then, the magic happens. With 3:13 or so left in the game, my friends' 3-year-old soon walks upstairs from the basement, where he had been playing, into the living room.
And Carolina starts making a comeback. Those of us sitting in the living room, including his mother, understood that this child absolutely could not go back downstairs. Doing so would surely ruin the comeback bid.
But of course, the kid didn't want to stay upstairs, and he's not old enough to grasp the (probably foolish) notion of sports superstitions, "mojo," and the like. Trying to hold onto him while he squirmed to go back downstairs to play with Thomas the Train was not going to work. But he had to stay upstairs, and the adults all understood this.
So his mother bribed him with candy at 8:00 at night. And upstairs he stayed. And Carolina went to overtime.
Soon we had a ridiculously hyper three-year-old boy running around in circles on the oversized ottoman in the middle of the room, lips blue from bubble gum and gumdrops. And Carolina went to the second overtime.
Then it got tricky again, because he done eating the candy and the trains were still downstairs. So his mom tried to bribe him with paints. It didn't seem like the paint bribe was going to work at first, but when she took out the oversized watercolor book, his eyes lit up and he decided to stay. He even tried to paint within the lines.
And Carolina won the game.
So no, it had nothing, nothing, to do with Tyler Hansbrough's 39 points, or QT's better-than-usual performance, or Wayne Ellington's hot hand.
Nope, it was all the kid.
I always hate the UNC-Clemson game in Chapel Hill because of that gosh-darn (now) 53-game winning streak. It's more stressful than the Duke games. And for the first 37 minutes or so of last night's game, it looked like that streak was going to end. Let me tell you what saved the Heels. It wasn't the shooting, or the rebounding, or any semblance of defense. Nope, it was my friends' 3-year-old son.
Disclaimer: I know that at some point on this blog I've mentioned that I'm quite superstitious. If you don't go for superstitions, you might want to stop reading now.
So we spend 37 minutes of the game losing, for various reasons that I'm sure you find on other blogs. And then, the magic happens. With 3:13 or so left in the game, my friends' 3-year-old soon walks upstairs from the basement, where he had been playing, into the living room.
And Carolina starts making a comeback. Those of us sitting in the living room, including his mother, understood that this child absolutely could not go back downstairs. Doing so would surely ruin the comeback bid.
But of course, the kid didn't want to stay upstairs, and he's not old enough to grasp the (probably foolish) notion of sports superstitions, "mojo," and the like. Trying to hold onto him while he squirmed to go back downstairs to play with Thomas the Train was not going to work. But he had to stay upstairs, and the adults all understood this.
So his mother bribed him with candy at 8:00 at night. And upstairs he stayed. And Carolina went to overtime.
Soon we had a ridiculously hyper three-year-old boy running around in circles on the oversized ottoman in the middle of the room, lips blue from bubble gum and gumdrops. And Carolina went to the second overtime.
Then it got tricky again, because he done eating the candy and the trains were still downstairs. So his mom tried to bribe him with paints. It didn't seem like the paint bribe was going to work at first, but when she took out the oversized watercolor book, his eyes lit up and he decided to stay. He even tried to paint within the lines.
And Carolina won the game.
So no, it had nothing, nothing, to do with Tyler Hansbrough's 39 points, or QT's better-than-usual performance, or Wayne Ellington's hot hand.
Nope, it was all the kid.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
When are they going to change that rule, baby?!?!
Awww...you thought I was referring to Dick Vitale's constant complaint that the possession arrow "jump ball" rule is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, the possession arrow "jump ball" rule is ridiculous. But what I'm referring to is the "it looks like a situation where we might want to implement the ridiculous possession arrow 'jump ball' rule, so let's just let them play instead of calling a foul like we would usually do" non-call.
Yes, that's exactly what happens. If it looks like two players from opposing teams might possibly possess the ball at the same time, the refs allow them to shove, elbow, and otherwise wrestle until they decide to blow the play dead. Quite a difference from touch fouls in the backcourt and Greg Paulus flops. I mean, seriously, that's exactly how Ty Lawson hurt his ankle. Ryan Reid threw him to the ground in a way that should have caught the attention of the WWE. I'm not accusing Reid of playing dirty, or intentionally hurting Lawson, or anything of the like. I just think the play should have been stopped before either player ended up on the ground.
Yes, that's exactly what happens. If it looks like two players from opposing teams might possibly possess the ball at the same time, the refs allow them to shove, elbow, and otherwise wrestle until they decide to blow the play dead. Quite a difference from touch fouls in the backcourt and Greg Paulus flops. I mean, seriously, that's exactly how Ty Lawson hurt his ankle. Ryan Reid threw him to the ground in a way that should have caught the attention of the WWE. I'm not accusing Reid of playing dirty, or intentionally hurting Lawson, or anything of the like. I just think the play should have been stopped before either player ended up on the ground.
Super Giants Bowl
Last year's Super Bowl between the Chicago Bears and the Indianapolis Colts was historic. Peyton Manning won his first Super Bowl. Tony Dungy became the first African-American Coach to win a Super Bowl. This year's Super Bowl between the New York Giants and the New England Patriots was also historic. Eli Manning won his first Super Bowl, preventing the Patriots from completing the first perfect season since 1972. Overlooked has been the fact that Giants' GM Jerry Reese became the first African-American GM to win a Super Bowl. Congratulations, Jerry!
A few more notes:
1) Too bad the MVP trophy almost always goes to an offensive player. No offense to Eli Manning, whose fourth quarter escape from an almost-certain sack created an amazing play to keep the winning drive alive. But really, the Giants' defense won the game. Who knew that Plaxico Burress' prediction would be almost correct?
2) Not that too many people took Plaxico seriously in the first place. Did anyone, even those fans who thought New York would win, really think New England would only score 14 points? And if you did, did you think that BEFORE Tom Brady jinxed himself by laughing at Plaxico. The two people (if that many) who usually read my posts know that my brother prides himself on making fairly accurate predictions. Even he had to admit that he was way off with his 38-24 Patriots win prediction (or it might have been 34-28...way off, either way).
3) Man, I'm glad Peyton won the Super Bowl last year. Can you imagine how mad he'd be if Eli had beaten him to it? I mean, really!
4) There are already questions about whether the Giants can repeat next year. The answer is no. Don't get me wrong; they're a good team. You have to be a good team to win the Super Bowl. But the Giants are like the 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers: good enough to win a Super Bowl; not good enough to be able to get there two years in a row. Heck, the Patriots can't even figure out how to pull that one off. Let's face it: teams in recent memory who have pulled off back-to-backs (Denver 1998-1999, Dallas 1993-1994, San Francisco 1989-1990) haven't tended to be wild card berths with 6 regular-season losses. I will say this, though: Tiki Barber looks rather silly.
A few more notes:
1) Too bad the MVP trophy almost always goes to an offensive player. No offense to Eli Manning, whose fourth quarter escape from an almost-certain sack created an amazing play to keep the winning drive alive. But really, the Giants' defense won the game. Who knew that Plaxico Burress' prediction would be almost correct?
2) Not that too many people took Plaxico seriously in the first place. Did anyone, even those fans who thought New York would win, really think New England would only score 14 points? And if you did, did you think that BEFORE Tom Brady jinxed himself by laughing at Plaxico. The two people (if that many) who usually read my posts know that my brother prides himself on making fairly accurate predictions. Even he had to admit that he was way off with his 38-24 Patriots win prediction (or it might have been 34-28...way off, either way).
3) Man, I'm glad Peyton won the Super Bowl last year. Can you imagine how mad he'd be if Eli had beaten him to it? I mean, really!
4) There are already questions about whether the Giants can repeat next year. The answer is no. Don't get me wrong; they're a good team. You have to be a good team to win the Super Bowl. But the Giants are like the 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers: good enough to win a Super Bowl; not good enough to be able to get there two years in a row. Heck, the Patriots can't even figure out how to pull that one off. Let's face it: teams in recent memory who have pulled off back-to-backs (Denver 1998-1999, Dallas 1993-1994, San Francisco 1989-1990) haven't tended to be wild card berths with 6 regular-season losses. I will say this, though: Tiki Barber looks rather silly.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
We like defense
This week's theme in men's college basketball? Low-scoring games. On Thursday, Virginia Commonwealth beat Georgia State 49-47. On Saturday, VCU managed to score a few more points to beat Hofstra 59-49. According to one of the sports reporters for VCU's student newspaper, The Commonwealth Times, the Rams could very well make it to the NCAA tournament again this season, but don't look for them to pull off any upsets over, say, Duke.
George Washington beat St. Louis by 29 points despite only scoring 49. That's right, folks...the mighty Billikens (click here to learn what a Billiken is) scored a grand total of 20 points for the entire game...7 in the first half and 13 in the second half. Hey, at least they almost doubled their production after halftime.
"Oh, but those are mid-major teams," you might say. Ah, but the mid-majors are not the only victims of the "we can't find the basket" debacle. Take, for instance, N.C. State. Not only do the Wolfpack play in the ACC, but they were picked to finish third in the conference by most people who bothered to make such predictions. At the moment, they look, at best, like the fifth best team, and that's really a rather generous statement on my part. On Wednesday, they scored 54 points while beating North Carolina Central, who only managed to score 29. And on the previous Saturday, they only managed to scrape together 50 points against Presbyterian, a school I didn't even know existed until they showed up on State's schedule (they are located in Clinton, SC). And, as everyone in the Triangle surely knows by now, State scraped together a meager 13 points in the first half against UNC yesterday. Which, granted, wouldn't have looked so bad had UNC not scored 43 in the first half. Granted, State scored 49 points in the second half, although it really didn't mean a darn thing as UNC scored 50 and won the game by 31, 93-62.
I know, I know, I'm a Tar Heel fan and I'm sitting here picking on State, but they just happen to be a perfect example for this post. I also know that the scores of the past week or so are not wholly unique (although St. Louis' score was a newsmaker)...there are low-scoring teams every year. Maybe it's just because I'm used to the Heels scoring 90 or so points per game, but there just seems to be a bigger discrepancy between the high scoring teams and the low scoring teams this year...and there seems to be a lot more low scoring teams. I hope this doesn't lead to a snoozer of a NCAA tournament this spring.
George Washington beat St. Louis by 29 points despite only scoring 49. That's right, folks...the mighty Billikens (click here to learn what a Billiken is) scored a grand total of 20 points for the entire game...7 in the first half and 13 in the second half. Hey, at least they almost doubled their production after halftime.
"Oh, but those are mid-major teams," you might say. Ah, but the mid-majors are not the only victims of the "we can't find the basket" debacle. Take, for instance, N.C. State. Not only do the Wolfpack play in the ACC, but they were picked to finish third in the conference by most people who bothered to make such predictions. At the moment, they look, at best, like the fifth best team, and that's really a rather generous statement on my part. On Wednesday, they scored 54 points while beating North Carolina Central, who only managed to score 29. And on the previous Saturday, they only managed to scrape together 50 points against Presbyterian, a school I didn't even know existed until they showed up on State's schedule (they are located in Clinton, SC). And, as everyone in the Triangle surely knows by now, State scraped together a meager 13 points in the first half against UNC yesterday. Which, granted, wouldn't have looked so bad had UNC not scored 43 in the first half. Granted, State scored 49 points in the second half, although it really didn't mean a darn thing as UNC scored 50 and won the game by 31, 93-62.
I know, I know, I'm a Tar Heel fan and I'm sitting here picking on State, but they just happen to be a perfect example for this post. I also know that the scores of the past week or so are not wholly unique (although St. Louis' score was a newsmaker)...there are low-scoring teams every year. Maybe it's just because I'm used to the Heels scoring 90 or so points per game, but there just seems to be a bigger discrepancy between the high scoring teams and the low scoring teams this year...and there seems to be a lot more low scoring teams. I hope this doesn't lead to a snoozer of a NCAA tournament this spring.
Monday, January 07, 2008
I Heart Bobby Frasor (and Wayne Ellington)
Okay, I'll admit it. I wasn't too concerned when Bobby Frasor went down with a torn ACL against Nevada last month. It's not that I didn't like Bobby, or that I didn't appreciate his talent, or that I had some personal grudge against him. I just figured that the Heels are a talented enough team to get along without him. And, well, they might be. But after watching last night's game, I'm fretting that torn ACL more and more.
Why?
Ty Lawson can't play the whole game, and when Ty goes out, QT comes in. My mom loves QT. She always tells her fourth grade students what a good team player he is. Which is probably a valid point. But, if I had to choose between QT and Bobby, my money would go to Bobby. The QT factor was absent for the first few games after Frasor's injury because QT also had an injury, but it was out in full force last night: 8 minutes of playing time, 3 turnovers, and an ill-advised scoop shot that might as well have been a fourth turnover. But I suppose Roy doesn't really want Marcus Ginyard playing backup point guard for the rest of the season, which is what took place while QT was injured.
On another note...maybe it was because I was so distracted by the score last night, but I think that during the Wayne Ellington had the quietest 36 points I've ever seen. Now we get to debate whether Clemson is "really that good," or if Carolina is "not as good as advertised." The truth probably lies somewhere in between, although Clemson could have major problems if they don't improve their foul shooting (they would have won the game had they not missed almost half of their free throws). Clemson did find a way to shut down Tyler Hansbrough--if you consider 12 points and 12 rebounds as being shut down. My friends and I wondered if Tyler was sick, since his face looked much redder than usual. But then again, maybe he was working harder than usual. Or my buddies at FSN threw the color off, which is always a likely answer :)
In conclusion: Bobby Frasor, we salute you. Go take care of that knee. Wayne Ellington, we also salute you. Keep on knocking them down.
Why?
Ty Lawson can't play the whole game, and when Ty goes out, QT comes in. My mom loves QT. She always tells her fourth grade students what a good team player he is. Which is probably a valid point. But, if I had to choose between QT and Bobby, my money would go to Bobby. The QT factor was absent for the first few games after Frasor's injury because QT also had an injury, but it was out in full force last night: 8 minutes of playing time, 3 turnovers, and an ill-advised scoop shot that might as well have been a fourth turnover. But I suppose Roy doesn't really want Marcus Ginyard playing backup point guard for the rest of the season, which is what took place while QT was injured.
On another note...maybe it was because I was so distracted by the score last night, but I think that during the Wayne Ellington had the quietest 36 points I've ever seen. Now we get to debate whether Clemson is "really that good," or if Carolina is "not as good as advertised." The truth probably lies somewhere in between, although Clemson could have major problems if they don't improve their foul shooting (they would have won the game had they not missed almost half of their free throws). Clemson did find a way to shut down Tyler Hansbrough--if you consider 12 points and 12 rebounds as being shut down. My friends and I wondered if Tyler was sick, since his face looked much redder than usual. But then again, maybe he was working harder than usual. Or my buddies at FSN threw the color off, which is always a likely answer :)
In conclusion: Bobby Frasor, we salute you. Go take care of that knee. Wayne Ellington, we also salute you. Keep on knocking them down.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Those '72 Dolphins can rest easy
I'm going on record now...the New England Patriots will not go undefeated this season. I've thought this the entire season, actually. Going undefeated is just too hard to do, no matter how good the team. Which is, quite frankly, why it rarely ever happens in sports. Any sport. And as we all know, it's only happened once in the NFL.
The proof? Indianapolis' loss to San Diego. New England's win over the Colts during week 9 was supposed to be proof that the Patriots were invincible...they played a less-than-spectacular game against another undefeated team that clearly played better...and still won. But then the Colts turned around and lost to an up-and-down Chargers team that, on paper, the Colts should have had no problem beating. But paper doesn't play the games, and Peyton Manning threw an unprecedented (for Peyton Manning, anyway) 6 interceptions. And now the Colts have gone from being perhaps the best team in the NFL to, at best, the third best team.
More proof? The St. Louis Rams beating the New Orleans Saints. Granted, like San Diego, New Orleans is another team that can't seem to decide whether or not it wants to be good. But St. Louis? Come on, who predicted that one?
The final proof is last December, when the Miami Dolphins beat the Patriots in a game that, again, on paper, Miami had no business winning. But it was the end of the season, and by that point, neither team had anything to lose.
It'd be funny if Miami beat a still-undefeated Patriots on December 23, ruining the Pats chances at a perfect season, assuring the '07 Dolphins at least one win, and preserving the '72 Dolphins champagne ceremony. But I'm not really counting on it. And it might be a moot point, anyway, as New England has to play Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore before the Miami match-up. Call me crazy, but I think the '72 Dolphins can sleep soundly knowing their accomplishment of being the only undefeated NFL team will remain intact.
The proof? Indianapolis' loss to San Diego. New England's win over the Colts during week 9 was supposed to be proof that the Patriots were invincible...they played a less-than-spectacular game against another undefeated team that clearly played better...and still won. But then the Colts turned around and lost to an up-and-down Chargers team that, on paper, the Colts should have had no problem beating. But paper doesn't play the games, and Peyton Manning threw an unprecedented (for Peyton Manning, anyway) 6 interceptions. And now the Colts have gone from being perhaps the best team in the NFL to, at best, the third best team.
More proof? The St. Louis Rams beating the New Orleans Saints. Granted, like San Diego, New Orleans is another team that can't seem to decide whether or not it wants to be good. But St. Louis? Come on, who predicted that one?
The final proof is last December, when the Miami Dolphins beat the Patriots in a game that, again, on paper, Miami had no business winning. But it was the end of the season, and by that point, neither team had anything to lose.
It'd be funny if Miami beat a still-undefeated Patriots on December 23, ruining the Pats chances at a perfect season, assuring the '07 Dolphins at least one win, and preserving the '72 Dolphins champagne ceremony. But I'm not really counting on it. And it might be a moot point, anyway, as New England has to play Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore before the Miami match-up. Call me crazy, but I think the '72 Dolphins can sleep soundly knowing their accomplishment of being the only undefeated NFL team will remain intact.
I guess they were due
What? A Carolina-State game nearing the end of the fourth quarter with Carolina's defense on a goal-line stance? Like that's never happened before...except this time State actually made its way into the end zone. Gah.
Okay, phantom offsides call or no, the better team did win. Which I suppose makes up for last year, when Carolina beat the snot out of State (by the end of the game, I actually felt kind of bad for the State fans that had shown up at Kenan Stadium). And for all of the other games that Carolina won in the past ten years, causing State fans to scream about the injustice of missed/botched/otherwise unfair calls.
It was fun to see Carolina climb back into the game, though. I mean, hell, if Carolina did keep State out of the end zone, it probably would have assured the Tar Heels a win in a game that looked like an easy Pack win half-way through the first quarter.
It's funny...I was just thinking that what has bothered me about the Tar Heels all season (other than the ever-increasing number of interceptions) is the defense's ability to make otherwise so-so running backs look like All-American candidates. Cedric Peerman (UVa)? 186 rushing yards. Jamelle Eugene (NCSU)? 159 rushing yards. But as I looked through the season's statistics, I realized that those are the only two players to have posted ridiculous rushing numbers. Maybe I'm combining the Tar Heels' efforts with those of the Carolina Panthers' defense. Man, this has been a hard football season for someone who roots for the Tar Heels, the Panthers, and (perish the thought) the Miami Dolphins.
Okay, phantom offsides call or no, the better team did win. Which I suppose makes up for last year, when Carolina beat the snot out of State (by the end of the game, I actually felt kind of bad for the State fans that had shown up at Kenan Stadium). And for all of the other games that Carolina won in the past ten years, causing State fans to scream about the injustice of missed/botched/otherwise unfair calls.
It was fun to see Carolina climb back into the game, though. I mean, hell, if Carolina did keep State out of the end zone, it probably would have assured the Tar Heels a win in a game that looked like an easy Pack win half-way through the first quarter.
It's funny...I was just thinking that what has bothered me about the Tar Heels all season (other than the ever-increasing number of interceptions) is the defense's ability to make otherwise so-so running backs look like All-American candidates. Cedric Peerman (UVa)? 186 rushing yards. Jamelle Eugene (NCSU)? 159 rushing yards. But as I looked through the season's statistics, I realized that those are the only two players to have posted ridiculous rushing numbers. Maybe I'm combining the Tar Heels' efforts with those of the Carolina Panthers' defense. Man, this has been a hard football season for someone who roots for the Tar Heels, the Panthers, and (perish the thought) the Miami Dolphins.
Friday, November 02, 2007
I'm Just Going to Rant Awhile Here...
I've lost my voice. It's amazing how you don't realize how essential your voice is until you can't use it. Especially when your co-workers decide to take the opportunity to pick on you when you can't say anything back. So now I've sat at home for the past day and a half, which hasn't been too bad since I don't make a habit of talking to myself out loud. What's more annoying is that I've also lost my sense of taste. This all may or may not have to do with the medication I've been taking for the poison ivy I got a few weeks ago, which thankfully is now pretty much gone. So as you can probably tell, I'm not a fun person to talk to at the moment, and wouldn't be even if I could actually talk.
So in the name of complaining, here are my sports-related gripes of the day:
1) Not that anyone feels sorry for me, but my fantasy team didn't win last week. They tied, leaving me at 7-0-1 for the season. The culprit is Brett Favre, who threw that spectacular touchdown pass in overtime against Denver to Greg Jennings instead of Donald Driver.
2) Until Kobe Bryant has actually left the Lakers for another team, I don't want to hear anymore speculations about where he is going to play. The same goes for Alex Rodriguez. Just tell me when the deals are done.
3) I'm currently watching PTI, where they are discussing the fact that the Dolphins are trying to pay celebrities to attend games. The assumption here seems to be that no one wants to attend Dolphins games because they are a horrible 0-7. Which is a valid point. But hell, the Dolphins have been awful for years now, and the one game I attended in Miami was arguably the worst sporting event I have ever attended (10-7 Dolphins win against Cleveland. It was cold, even though we were in Miami, and we just wanted someone to win in regulation so we wouldn't have to stay for overtime). So I would really encourage the Dolphins front office to find good players to play on the field instead of celebrities to fill the stands. Thanks!
4) There is no such thing as running up the score in pro football. I guess I'm biased, though, as Tom Brady is my starting quarterback. But let's think about it: these guys are getting paid lots of money to do the best job that they can. So, 1) a team should be able to score as many points as they can without being questioned, and 2) the other team should, in theory, be able to prevent the first team from scoring that many points in the first place. Right?
5) Barry Bonds needs to lose his voice.
I'm sure there will be more to come...
So in the name of complaining, here are my sports-related gripes of the day:
1) Not that anyone feels sorry for me, but my fantasy team didn't win last week. They tied, leaving me at 7-0-1 for the season. The culprit is Brett Favre, who threw that spectacular touchdown pass in overtime against Denver to Greg Jennings instead of Donald Driver.
2) Until Kobe Bryant has actually left the Lakers for another team, I don't want to hear anymore speculations about where he is going to play. The same goes for Alex Rodriguez. Just tell me when the deals are done.
3) I'm currently watching PTI, where they are discussing the fact that the Dolphins are trying to pay celebrities to attend games. The assumption here seems to be that no one wants to attend Dolphins games because they are a horrible 0-7. Which is a valid point. But hell, the Dolphins have been awful for years now, and the one game I attended in Miami was arguably the worst sporting event I have ever attended (10-7 Dolphins win against Cleveland. It was cold, even though we were in Miami, and we just wanted someone to win in regulation so we wouldn't have to stay for overtime). So I would really encourage the Dolphins front office to find good players to play on the field instead of celebrities to fill the stands. Thanks!
4) There is no such thing as running up the score in pro football. I guess I'm biased, though, as Tom Brady is my starting quarterback. But let's think about it: these guys are getting paid lots of money to do the best job that they can. So, 1) a team should be able to score as many points as they can without being questioned, and 2) the other team should, in theory, be able to prevent the first team from scoring that many points in the first place. Right?
5) Barry Bonds needs to lose his voice.
I'm sure there will be more to come...
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Fantasy Football Week 5: That was almost a disastrous decision
Or better titled: I'm starting Romo and T.O. and Nick Folk against Buffalo. How can I go wrong?
Which, really, I'm still asking myself. Starting that trio against Buffalo should have been the best plan ever, and yet it took Folk's last second (and for that matter, second) 53-yard field goal for me to win my fantasy matchup. The one week I decided to start Romo over Brady, and Romo nearly self-destructed with five interceptions and a fumble. Brady, of course, had his usual near-perfect game. This is what I get for taunting my friend who wanted me to trade Romo to him for Donovan McNabb.
I like Romo, though. One of the post-game interviews with him went something like this:
Reporter: How were you able to pull yourself together after you threw those four interceptions in the first half?
Romo: I had four interceptions in the first half?
Reporter: Yes. Well, actually, you had five overall, but only four in the first half.
Romo: Oh, I thought I had like seven in the first half.
Yes, the usually dismal Buffalo defense had five interceptions, two of which they ran back for touchdowns, and a fumble recovery. Special teams ran in another touchdown. Which means that the Buffalo offense, even with "the media drools all over me" Trent Edwards, mustered a mere three points. My husband was quite infuriated when he realized that he would have won his fantasy matchup had he started Buffalo's defense over Chicago's defense. Go figure.
Which, really, I'm still asking myself. Starting that trio against Buffalo should have been the best plan ever, and yet it took Folk's last second (and for that matter, second) 53-yard field goal for me to win my fantasy matchup. The one week I decided to start Romo over Brady, and Romo nearly self-destructed with five interceptions and a fumble. Brady, of course, had his usual near-perfect game. This is what I get for taunting my friend who wanted me to trade Romo to him for Donovan McNabb.
I like Romo, though. One of the post-game interviews with him went something like this:
Reporter: How were you able to pull yourself together after you threw those four interceptions in the first half?
Romo: I had four interceptions in the first half?
Reporter: Yes. Well, actually, you had five overall, but only four in the first half.
Romo: Oh, I thought I had like seven in the first half.
Yes, the usually dismal Buffalo defense had five interceptions, two of which they ran back for touchdowns, and a fumble recovery. Special teams ran in another touchdown. Which means that the Buffalo offense, even with "the media drools all over me" Trent Edwards, mustered a mere three points. My husband was quite infuriated when he realized that he would have won his fantasy matchup had he started Buffalo's defense over Chicago's defense. Go figure.
Vinny Testaverde, yeah...
...He's the best quarterback in the American Football Conference Eastern Division...
Okay, so the song is a little outdated, but with the way David Carr has looked thus far this season, I might be willing to sing it loudly and proudly.
I'm also beginning to think that Carr likes getting sacked, because, well, he gets sacked all the time. Sometimes he gets sacked because the line doesn't protect him well enough, and sometimes he gets sacked for reasons that I haven't quite figured out. I applauded the Panthers when they acquired Carr during the off-season, figuring that his lackluster performance in Houston was due to the fact that he was, well, playing for Houston. But seeing as how Houston doesn't look quite so horrible with Matt Schaub, and Carr has not looked significantly better playing for Carolina, I'm beginning to think that I should stop making excuses for him.
So...Vinny Testaverde, yeah...
Sing it!
Okay, so the song is a little outdated, but with the way David Carr has looked thus far this season, I might be willing to sing it loudly and proudly.
I'm also beginning to think that Carr likes getting sacked, because, well, he gets sacked all the time. Sometimes he gets sacked because the line doesn't protect him well enough, and sometimes he gets sacked for reasons that I haven't quite figured out. I applauded the Panthers when they acquired Carr during the off-season, figuring that his lackluster performance in Houston was due to the fact that he was, well, playing for Houston. But seeing as how Houston doesn't look quite so horrible with Matt Schaub, and Carr has not looked significantly better playing for Carolina, I'm beginning to think that I should stop making excuses for him.
So...Vinny Testaverde, yeah...
Sing it!
Sunday, October 07, 2007
UNC v. Miami: Everyone takes the blame
I love the unwritten understanding amongst sports fans that each person--no matter how removed from the playing field--has the ability to affect the outcome of games. It's something that is acknowledged by seemingly all sports fans, and not understood at all by people who couldn't care less about sports.
Yesterday's UNC-Miami game played at Kenan Stadium is a perfect example. UNC was leading 27-0 at halftime after playing a nearly flawless first half. Then, disaster struck. My brother and his girlfriend moved down from their seats in Section 209 to sit with me and my husband in Section 112. The daugther of the people sitting next to me came over from the student section to sit with her parents. I moved down one row so I could sit next to my husband instead of behind him. And boom. 27-0 turned into 27-20. Really fast. So, my brother and his girlfriend moved back to Section 209. The other girl moved back to the student section. I moved up one row and sat behind my husband. Crisis averted, we won 33-27. So you can clearly see how the people in my section were responsible for this near collapse, only to readjust so UNC could pull out the victory.
Right. It sounds oh so ludicrous. But almost everyone I talked to after the game had their own story about how they were responsible for what had happened. I love sports fans.
Yesterday's UNC-Miami game played at Kenan Stadium is a perfect example. UNC was leading 27-0 at halftime after playing a nearly flawless first half. Then, disaster struck. My brother and his girlfriend moved down from their seats in Section 209 to sit with me and my husband in Section 112. The daugther of the people sitting next to me came over from the student section to sit with her parents. I moved down one row so I could sit next to my husband instead of behind him. And boom. 27-0 turned into 27-20. Really fast. So, my brother and his girlfriend moved back to Section 209. The other girl moved back to the student section. I moved up one row and sat behind my husband. Crisis averted, we won 33-27. So you can clearly see how the people in my section were responsible for this near collapse, only to readjust so UNC could pull out the victory.
Right. It sounds oh so ludicrous. But almost everyone I talked to after the game had their own story about how they were responsible for what had happened. I love sports fans.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
It would have been nice...
...to have been able to watch the Carolina Hurricanes' season opener on TV. But hey, whatever.
Someone explain Notre Dame's troubles to me, please.
We all know that Notre Dame football is awful this year. They've started their season 0-5, a program first. Experts think it's pretty much a given that they'll go at least 0-8 before seeing their first win, and many think it's possible that they'll go 0-12. It's a common story for, say, Duke, but at this point, it seems entirely likely that Duke will beat them when they play on November 17.
How did the Fighting Irish come to hit rock bottom? I've discussed Carolina's disastrous 8-20 baketball season on this blog before. I know about the perfect storm of circumstances that brought about that challenging year: Gutheridge had done a poor job recruiting because everyone knew he was going to retire; Doherty then took over a mediocre team who didn't like his interpersonal skills. And voila...you got the season that every Tar Heel fan loves to sweep under the carpet and every Duke and NCSU fan loves to rehash every chance they get.
But are those the circumstances surrounding Notre Dame? Weiss is in his third year as head coach, is coming off a 10-3 season with a Sugar Bowl appearance (albeit a loss), and has a strong recruiting class coming in next year. Compare to UNC: the 8-20 year was in Doherty's second year as coach, coming off a 26-7 season (albeit with a disappointing second half of the season and a second round loss in the NCAA tournament), and with a great recruiting class coming in.
Hey, I don't know much about Notre Dame football, so I'm asking someone to please explain to me how this is happening. Inquiring minds want to know.
How did the Fighting Irish come to hit rock bottom? I've discussed Carolina's disastrous 8-20 baketball season on this blog before. I know about the perfect storm of circumstances that brought about that challenging year: Gutheridge had done a poor job recruiting because everyone knew he was going to retire; Doherty then took over a mediocre team who didn't like his interpersonal skills. And voila...you got the season that every Tar Heel fan loves to sweep under the carpet and every Duke and NCSU fan loves to rehash every chance they get.
But are those the circumstances surrounding Notre Dame? Weiss is in his third year as head coach, is coming off a 10-3 season with a Sugar Bowl appearance (albeit a loss), and has a strong recruiting class coming in next year. Compare to UNC: the 8-20 year was in Doherty's second year as coach, coming off a 26-7 season (albeit with a disappointing second half of the season and a second round loss in the NCAA tournament), and with a great recruiting class coming in.
Hey, I don't know much about Notre Dame football, so I'm asking someone to please explain to me how this is happening. Inquiring minds want to know.
No, I'm not trading Romo. Or Brady.
Still undefeated for the time being. I got an email from my Fantasy League informing me that another manager had proposed a trade:
Donovan McNabb and Chris Cooley for Tony Romo. Or if I couldn't part with Romo, Tom Brady.
I had to tell him that:
1) Donovan McNabb had been on my "no draft list" before the season started,
and
2) his performance against the New York Football Giants didn't exactly make me rethink that decision,
and
3) Chris Cooley doesn't sweeten the deal as I already have Kellen Winslow and Donald Driver,
and
4) giving him Romo or Brady would just mean that he would beat me with whichever one I parted with the week that I play him.
So, as you have probably already figured out, I rejected the trade.
But his proposal has made me wonder about what I should do with Romo on a weekly basis. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to get rid of him, but it seems like an awful waste to bench him the entire season except for New England's bye week. What to do, what to do? It might end in a coin toss this weekend.
I also realized that I have managed to build a bench that can outperform my starters. With the exception of Romo, both of my defenses, and Shayne Graham, I have acquired my entire bench off of waivers since Week 2. I think I did a good job, but it makes my decision-making tougher.
Decisions that will not end in coin tosses are as follows:
1) Cedric Benson: benched. I don't think I need to explain this one.
2) Sammy Morris: starting. I don't think I need to explain this one, either.
3) T.O.: starting, as usual, although it amazes (and frustrates) me that Dallas scored 35 points and T.O. racked up an anemic 33 yards. But HEY, I hear he threw an amazing block enabling Patrick Crayton to score. More on Crayton in a minute...
4) Joe Jurevicius: benched, as usual, although in retrospect, I should have started him over T.O. last week.
Decisions that probably will not end in coin tosses but who knows:
1) Donald Driver: benched. Green Bay's playing against Chicago, who still concerns me despite their poorer than expected performance thus far this season. Ah, expectations.
2) Shaun McDonald: starting. He's playing against Washington, and Detroit loves to throw.
Now back to Crayton...based on last Sunday's performance, 31,055 Yahoo! Fantasy Football managers added him to their teams this week. This reminds me of a few years ago when seemingly every other manager added DeShaun Foster to their teams after he had one great game. Being an avid Panthers follower, I could have told all of them that the move was probably futile, seeing as how Foster is dreadfully inconsistent. And I'm sure many of them figured that out a week or two later, and perhaps ended up dropping him in the end. Now, I'm not saying that Crayton is the same type of player as Foster, but it does surprise me that so many people are willing to pick a guy up after one good game.
Donovan McNabb and Chris Cooley for Tony Romo. Or if I couldn't part with Romo, Tom Brady.
I had to tell him that:
1) Donovan McNabb had been on my "no draft list" before the season started,
and
2) his performance against the New York Football Giants didn't exactly make me rethink that decision,
and
3) Chris Cooley doesn't sweeten the deal as I already have Kellen Winslow and Donald Driver,
and
4) giving him Romo or Brady would just mean that he would beat me with whichever one I parted with the week that I play him.
So, as you have probably already figured out, I rejected the trade.
But his proposal has made me wonder about what I should do with Romo on a weekly basis. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to get rid of him, but it seems like an awful waste to bench him the entire season except for New England's bye week. What to do, what to do? It might end in a coin toss this weekend.
I also realized that I have managed to build a bench that can outperform my starters. With the exception of Romo, both of my defenses, and Shayne Graham, I have acquired my entire bench off of waivers since Week 2. I think I did a good job, but it makes my decision-making tougher.
Decisions that will not end in coin tosses are as follows:
1) Cedric Benson: benched. I don't think I need to explain this one.
2) Sammy Morris: starting. I don't think I need to explain this one, either.
3) T.O.: starting, as usual, although it amazes (and frustrates) me that Dallas scored 35 points and T.O. racked up an anemic 33 yards. But HEY, I hear he threw an amazing block enabling Patrick Crayton to score. More on Crayton in a minute...
4) Joe Jurevicius: benched, as usual, although in retrospect, I should have started him over T.O. last week.
Decisions that probably will not end in coin tosses but who knows:
1) Donald Driver: benched. Green Bay's playing against Chicago, who still concerns me despite their poorer than expected performance thus far this season. Ah, expectations.
2) Shaun McDonald: starting. He's playing against Washington, and Detroit loves to throw.
Now back to Crayton...based on last Sunday's performance, 31,055 Yahoo! Fantasy Football managers added him to their teams this week. This reminds me of a few years ago when seemingly every other manager added DeShaun Foster to their teams after he had one great game. Being an avid Panthers follower, I could have told all of them that the move was probably futile, seeing as how Foster is dreadfully inconsistent. And I'm sure many of them figured that out a week or two later, and perhaps ended up dropping him in the end. Now, I'm not saying that Crayton is the same type of player as Foster, but it does surprise me that so many people are willing to pick a guy up after one good game.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Fantasy Football: Week 3 Redux
Alrighty, my team is now the only undefeated team in my league. Which I think is cool, although it makes me think that I'm in for a rude awakening sometime soon. LT (15 points) definitely did better than last week, although he still isn't producing like he has in the past. I should have started Shaun McDonald (13 points) over Jerricho Cotchery (5 points) and Sammy Morris (10 points) over Cedric Benson (7 points--he had 10 points until he fumbled). Seattle's D (15 points) performed better than Green Bay's D (7 points), and Nick Folk (11 points) kicked his way to more points than did Shayne Graham (8 points). But as my opponent scored a mere 36 points (they started Marc Bulger (-1 points) and left Ronnie Brown (40 points) on the bench--doh!), it really didn't matter.
Notes from Week 3:
That Jake Delhomme (15 points)-Steve Smith (1 point) combo I raved about last week? Doesn't work so well when Delhomme is injured and Smith drops passes. David Carr, anyone?
I'm really glad my team played against Brian Westbrook in Week 2 (15 points) and not Week 3 (40 points). I would have lost big.
As mentioned before, I'm glad my Week 3 opponent graciously overlooked Ronnie Brown (40 points) sitting so nicely on the bench.
I can't say I ever paid attention to Kevin Curtis (40 points) until this past Sunday.
Along with LT, Philip Rivers and the entire San Diego team looked much better. Speaking of which...
...did anyone expect Green Bay to be good this year? Not me. I guess they traded fortunes with New Orleans.
Moves for Week 4:
Not many. Folk is gettting kicking duties this weekend. I dropped the injured Matt Spaeth and added Donald Lee (actually, I first added Bubba Franks, and then realized he probably wasn't going to play. Note to self to read the player reports before making moves). I'll start Lee if Kellen Winslow doesn't play. McDonald will start over Cotchery if Cotchery doesn't play, but since Detroit's playing Chicago and the Jets are playing Buffalo, I'm hoping Jerricho will be a go. I'm keeping Green Bay's defense in against the Vikings.
--
For those of you wondering why I'm not writing about Tar Heel football, it's because I don't have that much to say. The most conversation generated thus far this season has been about the now-infamous reviewed field goal. Now every time someone kicks a field goal, I yell, "Review it!" Note: I can really be an obnoxious person sometimes.
Notes from Week 3:
That Jake Delhomme (15 points)-Steve Smith (1 point) combo I raved about last week? Doesn't work so well when Delhomme is injured and Smith drops passes. David Carr, anyone?
I'm really glad my team played against Brian Westbrook in Week 2 (15 points) and not Week 3 (40 points). I would have lost big.
As mentioned before, I'm glad my Week 3 opponent graciously overlooked Ronnie Brown (40 points) sitting so nicely on the bench.
I can't say I ever paid attention to Kevin Curtis (40 points) until this past Sunday.
Along with LT, Philip Rivers and the entire San Diego team looked much better. Speaking of which...
...did anyone expect Green Bay to be good this year? Not me. I guess they traded fortunes with New Orleans.
Moves for Week 4:
Not many. Folk is gettting kicking duties this weekend. I dropped the injured Matt Spaeth and added Donald Lee (actually, I first added Bubba Franks, and then realized he probably wasn't going to play. Note to self to read the player reports before making moves). I'll start Lee if Kellen Winslow doesn't play. McDonald will start over Cotchery if Cotchery doesn't play, but since Detroit's playing Chicago and the Jets are playing Buffalo, I'm hoping Jerricho will be a go. I'm keeping Green Bay's defense in against the Vikings.
--
For those of you wondering why I'm not writing about Tar Heel football, it's because I don't have that much to say. The most conversation generated thus far this season has been about the now-infamous reviewed field goal. Now every time someone kicks a field goal, I yell, "Review it!" Note: I can really be an obnoxious person sometimes.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Fantasy Football: Where's LT?
After two weeks of fantasy football, my team is 2-0 and in first place in my league by a whole three points (230 points). This past Sunday's studs? Tom Brady (26 points), Jerricho Cotchery (16 points), and Kellen Winslow (16 points). They scored enough points to make up for the fact that LT did, well, almost nothing (5 points), and Seattle's defense also did, well, almost nothing (3 points). I ended up winning my match-up by a mere seven points because Brian Westbrook would not stop scoring points (15 points, just enough to make me sweat since I had thought that I had a comfortable lead going into the Monday night Eagles-Redskins game).
This scare made me take a closer look at my 1) defense and 2) my woeful bench. The Packers "D" is in, Seattle's is out. Brandon Jackson, Drew Bennett, Matt Jones, Chris Baker, and Dave Rayner? Waivers. Sammy Morris, Shaun McDonald, Joe Jurevicius, Matt Spaeth, and Nick Folk? Welcome to my bench.
Interesting observations:
1) Jake Delhomme (55 points) outscored Peyton Manning (47 points). But my husband still isn't starting Jake over Peyton.
2) I'd love to have the Jake Delhomme (55 points)-Steve Smith (50 points) duo on my team. I also wish the rest of the Panthers would step it up as well.
3) This Fantasy Football thing is way addictive.
This scare made me take a closer look at my 1) defense and 2) my woeful bench. The Packers "D" is in, Seattle's is out. Brandon Jackson, Drew Bennett, Matt Jones, Chris Baker, and Dave Rayner? Waivers. Sammy Morris, Shaun McDonald, Joe Jurevicius, Matt Spaeth, and Nick Folk? Welcome to my bench.
Interesting observations:
1) Jake Delhomme (55 points) outscored Peyton Manning (47 points). But my husband still isn't starting Jake over Peyton.
2) I'd love to have the Jake Delhomme (55 points)-Steve Smith (50 points) duo on my team. I also wish the rest of the Panthers would step it up as well.
3) This Fantasy Football thing is way addictive.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Week 2 Fantasy Football Decisions
I mentioned two things in my last blog that I am now having to revisit:
1) Cedric Benson. After last week's disappointing performance, I seriously considered picking up another starting RB. But here's what I figure will happen: if I get rid of him, he'll have a breakout week this Sunday. So alas, I'm keeping him and starting him again.
2) Tom Brady and Tony Romor. I stated that I wasn't going to start Romo over Brady, even though Romo had fantastic numbers last week. And I'm still not going to start Romo over Brady. But Patriot-gate has me worried: are Brady's numbers going to go down if the Pats no longer know the defensive plays in advance? Argh. We'll have to wait and see. Who knows, maybe Romo will be starting after a few weeks.
Quote of the week: "The Michigan Wolverweenies better win big this weekend, because they're bringing Appalachian State's strength of schedule down." --caller on "Prime Time with the Pack Man"
1) Cedric Benson. After last week's disappointing performance, I seriously considered picking up another starting RB. But here's what I figure will happen: if I get rid of him, he'll have a breakout week this Sunday. So alas, I'm keeping him and starting him again.
2) Tom Brady and Tony Romor. I stated that I wasn't going to start Romo over Brady, even though Romo had fantastic numbers last week. And I'm still not going to start Romo over Brady. But Patriot-gate has me worried: are Brady's numbers going to go down if the Pats no longer know the defensive plays in advance? Argh. We'll have to wait and see. Who knows, maybe Romo will be starting after a few weeks.
Quote of the week: "The Michigan Wolverweenies better win big this weekend, because they're bringing Appalachian State's strength of schedule down." --caller on "Prime Time with the Pack Man"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)