GOP Debate at the Reagan Library

Tonight I watched the second GOP debate held at the Reagan Library.  Compared to the first Republican debate, this seemed cordial and productive, which still isn't saying much.  Thankfully, there was less Obama-bashing (...although he was still treated like a pinata), and less bickering between the candidates.  A big part of that should be attributed to the fact it was broadcast on MSNBC rather than FOX.  Still, this group of GOP candidates has set such a low bar in terms of insightful and logical thought, my compliments are a stretch.  There is a lot I could comment on, but I wanted to document my general feelings toward each candidate.  A big part of my reaction was based on how directly they answered questions, and if they used a 'safety net' of Obama/candidate-bashing when they didn't know how to respond.  Here are my general thoughts on the candidates:

Mitt Romney:  I believe it when people say he has grown leaps and bounds as a Presidential candidate over the past four years.  I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but for the most part he was direct, confident and well thought-out with his answers.  I cringe each time he has to defend his implementation of universal healthcare in Massachusetts, but that's where things are at.  I still believe he will outlast the rest of this field to contest Obama.

Rick Perry:  Frankly, I think his candidacy is a joke.  He repeats the same thing over and over:  Jobs, Economy, Texas, Jobs, America.  He prides himself on being a job-creating mastermind in Texas, which is misleading in so many ways.  Even if that were true, his IQ on all other issues is frighteningly poor.  I get that the economy is the big issue in the 2012 debate, but that doesn't mean a candidate who knows jack s*&$ about everything else should be able to run.  On the topics of climate change, social security, immigration, and foreign policy he had nothing insightful to offer.  He was noticeably rattled with questions toward the end of the debate and...minor detail...call Social Security a Ponzi scheme.  How can we think of electing somebody who disregards science, as it pertains to climate change, as "unsettled."  This isn't only a joke, its scary.  Simply put, he makes Mitt Romney look like Abraham Lincoln.

Jon Huntsman:  I believe Huntsman is the most credible, impressive candidate on the Republican side.  He comes across as balanced and compassionate compared to the others.  I believe he is much more moderate than he will get credit for, being alongside these other Tea Partyers.  Its refreshing to hear his thoughts on climate change, immigration, and foreign policy with China.  He was the only individual to state that he would not make hasty pledges regarding taxes because it compromises your ability to think critically and lead in the future.  What a novel concept.  If the other GOP candidates thought like Huntsman seems to think, I wouldn't be so worried.

Bachmann:  She seemed much more reserved and logical than her first debate.  Unfortunately for her, this probably means she will continue to lose ground to Romney and Perry.  I hate to say it, but I feel like she is a better candidate than Rick Perry.  For the most part tonight her responses were well thought-out, but in the GOP that doesn't equal more support.

Ron Paul:  I respect the guy a lot, and I enjoy listening to his views because I feel they are free from bias and bullshit.  He is genuine and intelligent, but that won't be enough it seems.  While he may be permanently stuck in the 2nd tier of Republican candidates, its worth listening to his platform so we can see what it looks like when a conservative politician isn't corrupted by conflicts of interest, or sheer ignorance.

Newt:  Why was he invited?

Cain:  See Newt comment.  Stick with pizza dude.

Santorum:  Seems smart enough, but he's fighting a losing battle at this point.

Let me know your thoughts!!!!!!!

QB Conundrum 2011

Greetings All,

I've taken a mini-hiatus from blogging, but am back with a subject matter I would appreciate some feedback on.  Currently in the world of sports there are countless, serious issues I could be addressing.  There is the NBA Lockout, The Georgetown Brawl, and NCAA scandals galore.  I'm going to take a step back from these controversial and polarizing issues to write about something much more trivial, but debate-igniting all the same:  The hierarchy of current NFL quarterbacks.   


First, a bit of background on how this blog post came to be.  My roommates and I were having a laid-back Sunday night during Labor Day Weekend, when the topic of NFL quarterbacks arose.  Many of you have probably engaged in this same conversation with your buddies, sitting around with some brews in hand, testing one-another's sports IQ.  Our first quarterback debate was surrounding the simple question:  If you were a GM starting a franchise tomorrow, what current NFL quarterback would you select, and what would your rankings look like overall?  To me, this argument speaks to making an investment, looking long-term, while still being cognizant of a veteran quarterbacks track-record and accomplishments (aka Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees).  My lists looks something like this:


1. Aaron Rodgers
2. Philip Rivers
3. (t) Matt Ryan; Michael Vick
5. Tom Brady
6. Matt Stafford, Joe Flacco, Sam Bradford, Josh Freeman


Some of you may be surprised to not find Peyton Manning or Drew Brees on this list, maybe even Ben Roethlisberger.  In my opinion, Manning and Brees both have two strong years left and then we will start to see a significant drop off in production.  I can easily see Bradford, Stafford and Matt Ryan taking their place in the upper-echelon of NFL signal-callers by 2013.  Tom Brady and Michael Vick are high on my list, but there is some skepticism due to injuries and normal wear & tear.  Tom Brady, who one can argue is a Top-5 all-time QB, hasn't won the big game in 6 years, and hasn't been to the Super Bowl in 4.  Michael Vick (don't get me wrong readers...I'm a Michael Vick fan and I think he's turned into a genuinely good person, not to mention a GREAT quarterback), with all the hype and hoopla surrounding him, is still an unproven post-season QB.  Furthermore, he is more of an injury liability as a scrambling QB than someone like Aaron Rodgers or Matt Ryan.  


Again, I want to be clear about the main debate my roommates and I were having:  Who would you select as your quarterback if you were starting a franchise today.  This is not the same question as 'Who is the best current quarterback?', or 'Who is the most accomplished QB?', and certainly not 'Who is the best fantasy QB?'.  Those are different arguments, and one's which, frankly, I feel are more straight-forward.  


I can't find many flaws with Rodgers at the moment.  You could argue that he's only had one significant playoff run, but it was one of the greatest postseason performances by a QB in NFL history.  At this point you know he isn't some flash in the pan:  He is entering his 6th NFL season, 3rd as the undisputed starter.  As a starting quarterback since 2008, he has averaged over 4,000 yds a season, while throwing 87 TDs compared to only 32 INTs.  This all seems like a safe bet to me.  If nothing catastrophic happens with injuries, I think we're looking at 6-7 more GREAT years.  


I would love to hear any/all comments...let me know who would be in your Top 5 if you were starting a franchise tomorrow.

The EPL is here!

Comrades,

One of my favorite leagues is kicking off its season this week and I couldn't be more pumped about it.  No, i'm not talking about the NFL (still pumped about that too...), but the English Premier League (EPL)!!!!  Many have heard me spread the Gospel of European Football over the past few years.  Whether its the World Cup, Euro Cup, The Champions League, or even the Gold Cup this past Spring, you can't say too many negative things about this glorious sport.  Do those guys in Spain, France, and Italy flop like 8-year old girls once in a while?  Absolutely.  Please try and look past it for a moment.

**Disclaimer**  Primarily referring to professional sports in this next paragraph...

One of my biggest criticisms of American sports and, to be more specific, American sports fans, is that we say we care, but we really don't.  For example, watching fans at a Miami Heat home game is beyond depressing.  I've seen people more excited and engaged at Bar Mitzvahs.  I've seen "supporters" filing out of a  Chicago White Sox game during the 7th inning because they are down by 3 runs...really?  In short - true, unwavering fans are hard to come by.  We have exceptions out there in the form of Red Sox, Packers, Yankees, Knicks, and Canadians fans (along with just a few others), but for the most part, European and English soccer + Fans put us to shame.  You can watch a game which includes the two worst teams in the EPL and you would think its the World Cup Finals.

A quick idea.  Those of you who were psyched OUT OF YOUR MIND about the Men's or Women's World Cups these past couple years and swore you were going to become a true soccer fan:  Do yourself a serious favor and sit down with a couple of open-minded buddies, crack open a six-pack of Newcastle or Guinness, and enjoy a Manchester City v Arsenal game.  Check out the group stage, quarter, or semifinals of the Champions League.  Heck, go on YouTube and just type in "Lionel Messi skills."  You really can't go wrong.  Just a thought because here are your other options in the sports universe:

Pre-season NFL (David Akers did kick a 59-yard fg today...)
14,672 more MLB games, give or take
Golf without Tiger Woods - barf
NBA Lockout
ATP Rogers Cup in Montreal - Yea, that's right.  I included a professional tennis reference.

By the way, having Fox Soccer Channel helps complete the aforementioned suggestions, but its really beside the point.

Rory McIlroy - The Next Tiger?

This past Sunday I had the final round of the US Open on as background noise while I constructed my third successful piece of IKEA furniture.  Watching Rory McIlroy defend a huge lead going into the final round was not high on my priority list, but lucky for him and golf, there is little else in the sports world that can be classified as exciting (I'll admit, the US/Jamaica Gold Cup game slipped my mind...no excuses).  I stuck around for the first few holes to see if he may give a few shots to the field (Masters Part II?), and then peeked back towards the end, because its always somewhat inspiring to see an athlete or team reach a coveted goal.


Not only was Rory handed his prestigious trophy, but he was also given countless accolades and a weight-vest stuffed with golf's expectations for the next decade.  For his performance, the compliments were well-deserved.  He dominated a field of the world's best and made it look easy.  However, after the 237th person labeled him as "Golf's Next Superstar", and "The Next Tiger," I started rolling my eyes.


My goal here is not to be a giant buzz-kill.  Does he have boatloads of talent?  Yes.  Maturity beyond his years?  Sure seems like it.  Let's pump the brakes though, people.  I am of the belief that we are still suffering from a Post-Tiger Hangover.  We want to find some reason, any reason, to make golf relevant again, and Rory McIlroy fits our criteria, even if he isn't anything close to the next Tiger Woods.  Some simple facts first.  Tiger made his first big mark at the 1997 Masters, winning by 12 strokes.  Sounds very similar to Rory's 2011 US Open victory, yes?  The ratings for Tiger Woods' Sunday, victory-lap final round that year were 14.1% of U.S. households - a record.  Rory's final round, which catapulted him into supposed "super-stardom," drew ratings of....wait for it...5.1%.  In fact, this year's ratings compared to 2010's US Open final round dropped 26% (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-20/tv-ratings-for-rory-mcilroy-s-record-u-s-open-golf-final-round-fall-35-.html). 


I certainly don't want to suggest that TV ratings have anything to do with an athlete's talent, but this hardly has the look and feel of golf's next transcendent figure.  We act like this kid is a phenomenon when his historic performance attracted fewer people than a Hawaii Five-0 episode.  The fact is, Rory played amazing golf against a subpar field, on a course that was playing way too easy.  Yes, everyone has to play with the same conditions, but this course didn't measure up as a true, major championship test.  My main point is this:  We don't like Rory nearly as much as we say we do.  Its like that person you start dating after breaking up with someone you REALLY liked, even loved.  You can keep telling yourself you're into it, but you know its not going anywhere.  Even if his talent is comparable to Tiger's at 22, the interest he is generating is half of that.  Sorry Rory.  


There is another point that I would like to make.  Those of you that start to follow my blog consistently will see a theme with many of my posts.  I am of the opinion that we are severely impatient as sports fans in this country.  The popular media can be categorized as ABSURDLY impatient.  We owe it to up-and-comers like Rory not to put the weight of the world on their shoulders the second they see success.  After watching Rory handle himself with class after the Masters, and throughout this week, its clear that this kid 'gets it.'  He seems to have a genuine passion for the game, respect for golf's history, and humility.  That can't be said for most 22 year-old athletes these days, let alone a rising star in his/her sport.  Let's save the Tiger & Nicklaus comparisons for another day.


Hopefully Rory proves me wrong and validates this level of hype - I think he has the skill and mindset to eventually do so.  If Rory finishes his career with a couple of majors under his belt and is able to maintain the character and dignity he has shown thus far, we should be content with that, and feel fortunate that he stayed a positive role model.


The pressure is on, Rory.  You don't have to win 19 majors to impress me; just don't punch your girlfriend, take steroids, start a dog-fighting ring, commit manslaughter when driving drunk, or tweet your genitals to the entire planet.  I don't think its too much to ask...

LeBron in the Media

I am an avid sports fan.  I pride myself on staying up to date with what is happening in the world of sports, especially with basketball, whether its amateur or professional in nature.  I fully enjoyed watching this past year's NCAA Tournament (even without my Spartans...next year), with a true team like Butler making another run.  For the first time since the Pistons' title run I was fully invested in the NBA playoffs as well.  With that being said, I couldn't help but become annoyed with the media coverage of LeBron James, especially in the NBA Finals.  

I am a realistic person.  At this point I know that the popular media is going to try whatever they can to blow everything out of proportion.  That goes for all news outlets, whether its ESPN, TMZ, or FOX.  I try and take each article and newscast with a grain of salt.  That being said, over the last two weeks I have read more about LeBron than I care to remember.  Two weeks ago I read about how he was finally ready to claim his title as "The Next MJ."  How this year's run through the playoffs conquered any doubt that he isn't the best player on the planet.  Every sports columnist from Michael Wilbon to Rick Reilly (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6634464) were lining up to offer their praise.  

And then came Game 4...and Game 5...and Game 6.  Rarely have I ever seen the sports community so, frankly, overjoyed to see someone fail.  There was a complete 180 done overnight.  I realize we will always have astronomical expectations for LeBron, which he should live with because of the money he is paid for playing a game.  With that being said, let's not go out of our way to try and put this guy in a mental ward by saying he is hopeless because he wasn't able to play up to his ability for a few games.  You could argue that he brought this media firestorm on himself during the Pre-season spectacle known as "The Decision," where He, Wade, and Bosh foolishly promised multiple championship rings for Miami (I'm not saying they won't win a few, but it was stupid to say it the way they did).  He didn't help his case by doing that, but for the most part he has been an exceptional ambassador for the NBA.  He is an athlete with an engaging personality (relative to most, at least), a positive and healthy perspective on the game that he plays, and, as the icing on the cake, a clean criminal record.  


We quickly hand down unfair criticism to LeBron while we rush to praise Michael Vick as a reformed superstar because he returned to his Pro-Bowl form quicker than expected.  That example may be a bit dramatic, but it demonstrates where our priorities are as sports fans in this country.  This is something that we should re-evaluate significantly.  If my kid was growing up and developed an interest in the game of basketball, I would gladly have him listen to LeBron when he talks about his view of the team, and playing each game for his teammates.  


There are countless examples in the world of sports that show us embracing the failure of another.  At some point let's rethink who we choose to criticize so heavily.