Happy fifth night of Hanukkah!
I treated myself to a bountiful day of soccer on Sunday, starting bright and early with a Manchester clash that lived up to its billing. Rooney got a bit lucky on the first, but would have wrong-footed Hart anyways, and made the second look easy. With both Rooney's first goal and Van Persie's match-winner (also helped in by a Man City deflection), I tend to give benefit of the doubt to the players.
Great to see Man City climb back in the game. I think the second-half proved that Tevez should be an even more integral part of the City attack, ahead of Aguero, in my humble opinion. Tevez has that Suarez-like ability to make something out of nothing. I personally liked the decision to start Balotelli - recently scored and he stepped up in this game last year with a goal. Just didn't have it, who knows the reason...weirdo. Dzeko was a necessary sub later in the game, and I thought Silva, Torre and Zabaleta all had positive second-halfs. Nasri remains a big mystery - wouldn't have minded to sub him out sooner.
Big win for United, but I still feel like they're susceptible on a weekly basis. They've been sick (as in good) at capitalizing on chances this year, but when Reading can put three first-half goals on the board, you still worry about the defense. Curious what type of impact Nani could have had on that game...Valencia didn't have an ounce of impact. Amazing that Man United has three guys like Nani, Welbeck, and Chicharito they can deploy from the bench in a game like that.
Arsenal v. West Brom
Themes: Maybe Gervinho is as hopeless as people say. I've wanted to give him an extra chance, since he can do some positive things going forward, but his ability to finish is essentially awful right now. He's having issues getting basic attempts on target, let alone past a goal-keeper. Hopefully Cazorla gets fined for that dive in the box. While you never like to see a 2-0 game from PKs, Arsenal was the better, more dangerous side and deserved the win. Giroud could have been better for me, but give credit to Wilshere and the defensive combo. With that win they could finish the weekend in 6th or 7th...much more tolerable than 10th pre-match. Bottom line: Big win at an important time, which should make for a much calmer week. I still think this team has a big opportunity with guys like Giroud, Podolski, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, and Cazorla all playing up to their potential.
For West Brom, disappointing. Shane Long got himself involved, but struck me as the only one making an impact going forward. When West Brom have looked legit this year, its because Odemwingie is also a threat to finish, and he was sub-par the entire 60 minutes he was in. Very little to comment on here, because it was such an uninspiring, uneventful afternoon for their side. At their best, a top 8 club, but a small margin for error to drop down to 12th or 13th. Norwich is a club at 12th who look much better than West Brom has the last couple of games.
Swansea v. Nowich
The Norwich v. Swansea game was an example of a tasty match-up that ended up being even better than advertised. After jumping ahead 3-0 at the half, I wasn't sure Swansea would claw back in, but give them credit for making it interesting. Michu is all over the field (although I could do without the subtle dives from him as well...the only shitty thing about Spanish futbol is most of the great players are soft. David Silva, Torres, Iniesta, Cazorla. Xavi may be the exception), and they looked somewhat dangerous most of the game. Graham up top was OK.
Really like the feel of Norwich at the moment. Huge win, lots of capable players on the field, and they played one of the more open, free brands of futbol I've ever seen from them. They will never be a Swansea in terms of style, but if they can get two goals on the board each game with guys like Holt, combined with the consistently-stellar defense, they're a top 10 club.
Liverpool v. West Ham
Really good game here. While West Ham doesn't play a very creative style of football (very American National Team-esque, prior to Klinsmann, if you will), its effective and they have a knack for creating real chances out of scums and 50/50 balls in the box. They will literally put a free-kick from midfield into the box and see what happens. Pretentious, no sir. Liverpool definitely came to play, doing as they pleased during the first 15 minutes.
Impressions going into the match: No Suarez, Shelby up-top instead, could be a 1-goal game, max, for the Reds. I'm a fan of Johnson, and Sterling was once-again pretty damn impressive. He bringgs a ton of activity, not afraid to mix it up, gets forward really quickly, and I think is about three months out from finishing lots more chances. The kid just turned 18 for cryin' out loud! He'll settle down a bit in front of goal and start to convert. Johnson's first goal was BOMB.com - absolutely nothing the keeper could do.
Both goals against Liverpool were tough breaks, and they probably felt cursed going into halftime. Nothing Allen could have done about that hand-ball (really tough call), and an own-goal by Gerrard made in 2-1 at the break.
Moment of the match was Joe Cole's top-class finish to tie things up at 2-2. Say what you will about his age, athleticism, and skill, but that goal looked like 'Joe-Cole-of-old pure soccer instinct' taking over for a few seconds. He made that look really easy, when in actuality, there are probably 20 people who will finish that in the EPL. While Shelby didn't knock-in that game-winner, he still had a huge affect on the goal, and I think a well-deserved 3-2 win.
Big result without Suarez, and the hint-of-good-fortune which had eluded this team throughout the season was finally on their side. Said it before: Like Rodgers, like the skill and talent on this team, like the system - I think they'll be fine. But seriously Luis, stay healthy...seriously.
Fox Soccer Channel just lost some serious points with me for not having the Tottenham/Everton match available. WTF. As a side-note, for those who don't watch FSC (so basically all of you), Eric Wynalda is the best sports analyst and on-camera sports personality that nobody knows about. I don't know how he pulls it off, but he kinda seems disinterested, or like he has something better to be doing the entire time he's on-camera. That, combined with a touch of arrogant sonofabitch, make him an awesome soccer analyst, it turns out.
Fulham v. Newcastle
Hallelujah! A Newcastle game which was aesthetically pleasing. Usually its Ba and Cisse chasing down balls over the top, but Ben Arfa added an element of fluidity and creativity which was invaluable. I thought he was the second-best player on the field...I'll talk about the top guy in a moment. The goal he scored was dirrrrrrty, even though the goalie kinda biffed. He was a problem on the left and right side for Fulham's defense all game. A shame he had to leave after 70 minutes having just returned from injury.
I thought the difference was clear: Dimitar Berbatov. I say this even though the guy missed a couple of chances he usually converts. After the 50th minute, his influence became progressively greater, and he was the reason Fulham could maintain any sort of possession equality down the stretch. The difference between players like him and to a lesser extent, Ben Arfa, is that they play the game at a different speed than everyone else. There's a split second of time they seem to buy themselves because of heightened instinct, talent, anticipation, whatever. The point being, its a beautiful thing to watch. A couple of times he took the his own goalie's free-kick about 60 yards downfield and controlled it like a freakin' throw-in from the sideline. I'm pretty sure he starts as a forward, but seeing him settle into the semi-midfield and put his stamp on the game there, rather than in front of goal, was impressive as shit. All of the commentary has been about what a monumental signing he is for that club, and I've been somewhat skeptical up until this match.
I won't be doing game-by-game break-downs each week, I promise. Lets just say, I went out HAAARRDDD on Thursday and Friday night of last week, and wasn't feeling very ambitious on Saturday morning. Because of that, I dominated a few more matches than usual.
Top 10: 12/12
Man U
Man City
Chelsea
Everton
Arsenal
Tottenham
Liverpool
Swansea
Norwich
Fulham
Santa-Con this weekend baby! SF is going to be like the Christmas-themed Where's Waldo...mainly because of all the Santa's. I don't know if a guy will be dressed up like Waldo somewhere. That's a decent idea.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Prem-time! With Matt.
What up.
I've been following the Premier League very closely for a second season, and thought I'd put some of my opinions down on paper each week. While many of my compatriots would not agree with me, I feel like the Premier League & Champions League is the best show in sports right now. My goal (pun) is to recap the weekly action, highlights, 'fixtures and results' of significance, and overall trends that are affecting the league.
With the season almost halfway through, I think its clear we have a two-team race, once again. Man U and Man City are slowly starting to separate themselves from Chelsea, which initially looked like a championship contender. They started the season in great form under di Matteo with a refreshingly potent style of play (as opposed to their effective, yet agonizingly cautious defensive approach last year) led by their trio of creative midfielders - Mata, Edgar, and Hazard. Torres was even showing a glimpse or two of his Liverpool days, but after a poor run of play in England and Europe, culminating in di Matteo's canning, they are starting to look just as fragile as they were early last year. Rafa Benitez has stepped into a almost impossible situation, and I can't see them being a threat to either Manchester side when its all said and done.
Torres hasn't scored in his last 7 or 8 matches, and in my opinion, still looks quite uncomfortable on the field, especially when trying to create something for himself. When he isn't consistently finishing opportunities created by the midfield, he's a liability. Outside of Torres, Sturridge has looked promising at times, but still inconsistent and now, injured. Watching their matches, the reliable ones have been Mickel (althought a goal every year or so would help...), Ivanovic, Hazard, and most of all, Mata, who is quickly becoming a more dangerous version of his Spanish countryman, David Silva. Lack of depth, along with the day to day turmoil will keep these guys anywhere from 3-6th in the table. Too many good players to completely fall out of the picture for the Champions League next year.
What to follow after the first 15 matches or so...
Can Everton keep up their good run of play? Fellaini is the Premier League's "Most Improved Player", Baines is rock-solid, Tim Howard is American (enough said), and a lot of strong supporting players. If Jelavic can start scoring near the rate he was at the end of last season, they'll be in good shape. They've had a mediocre run over the last 5-6 matches, piling up draws, but have looked consistently dangerous in the process, although the scorelines may not show it. In most of their recent matches, they have squandered a late goal which ends up costing them, so they do need to work on putting teams away. That being said, their threatening style of play is a welcomed change from last year, when Fellaini was underperforming and Tim Cahill continued to be the most overrated, ineffective EPL center forward in recent memory. He was caught offsides more than Luis Suarez can ever hope to be.
What's going to happen with Tottenham? I was surprised by the AVB hiring this off-season, and I'm in no way sold that he's a great manager in the EPL, but maybe he was destined to fail at Chelsea? They're in fourth at the moment, which seems fortunate based on the inconsistency of their play, but not a bad spot - possibly better than last season. Bale is starting to pick it up, and when he's at his best he's every bit as valuable as a Van Persie, Rooney, Toure, Suarez, etc. Defense always seems to be the question here. Question for myself...what happened to Scott Parker? In the matches I watched last year, he seemed like the guy who took them from good to "cracking."
Pretenders or contenders? What will happen with West Brom, Swansea, West Ham, and possibly squads like Norwich? West Brom looks the most complete team out of this sampling, but Swansea has looked strong and West Ham just had a second-half for the ages with their 3-1 defeat of Chelsea. I suppose you could include Everton in this bunch, but they strike me as a more well-rounded team than these others. First-half-of-the-season shout-outs, WHAT WHAT!, go to Shane Long (West Brom), Miguel Michu (Swansea), and Mohamed Diame (West Ham). And gotta dig players like Grant Holt, who just find a way to score goals no matter who the competition might be.
What will become of Liverpool and Arsenal? Forgetting about Newcastle (nice win v. Wigan) and Fulham for a moment, I still am bullish on these two squads. With Liverpool this is how I see it. If Luis Suarez stays healthy, they will be a top 8 team, and potentially could rise to around 6....for realzz. I've watched most of their games, and Brendan Rogers style looks like it should be effective. They have shown glimpses of what it can be (see Norwich), but just don't have anyone besides Suarez who is finishing or creating in the final quarter of the field. Sterling has overachieved, especially as a 17 year-old, Gerard is better-than-average, and I've always liked Glen Johnson and their defense. Somewhat worried about their midfield. Joe Allen hasn't looked great for me, luke-warm on Shelby, and Jose Enrique seems effective until he gets near the goal (good defender tho). I think they'll fall around 7 or 8 in the table, and supporters will end the season with a good taste in their mouths regarding Rogers. Maybe some noise in the FA Cup?
With Arsenal, I think there's a lot to like. A work in progress, yes, but tons of talent and a coach I consistently like in Arsene Wenger. Something I need to come clean about - I thought the dude was German until about 3 months ago...OK, more like 3 weeks ago. Yikes (he's French). Anyways, it seems like they always take two steps forward and 1 back. Or maybe more like 1.5 steps forward and 1 step back. They're doing OK in Europe, have an attack force in Giroud, Podolski, and Walcott which, in theory, should always produce some decent chances, and a strong midfield with Cazorla and the consistently under-appreciated Arteta (who kinda looks like he puts on a small base layer of makeup and plucks his eyebrows before games...seriously, he looks like a manikin/wax statue). Oxlade Chamberlain should continue to get better, and I see glimpses with Gervinho. I've also seen some really shaky moments in front of goal...we'll see. At any rate, I think a top 4 finish is still within their grasp. Their cast of characters, which is on par with Chelsea's, only rivals Man U and Man City in quality (love using that term: If you are a football, basketball, or baseball fan exclusively, ask the nearest futbol aficionado what it means, you're not alone) and will continue to mesh and play better.
More on Manchester United and Man City after their match this upcoming Sunday - plenty to chat about there.
Waggles Top 10 (not necessarily by their current standing...how they'll end up):
Man U
Man City
Arsenal
Everton
Tottenham
Chelsea
Liverpool
Swansea
West Brom
Fulham
Thoughts? Reactions? Is there anything I wrote which seems stupid to you? Dig the feedback.
Ultimate goal here is to get a group of knowledgeable futbol fans together, talk some shop over the interweb, and hopefully find some times to get out at 7:30am on a Saturday or Sunday to watch matches like ManU/ManCity this weekend while throwing back a Newcastle or 5. Maybe while watching Newcastle?
I've been following the Premier League very closely for a second season, and thought I'd put some of my opinions down on paper each week. While many of my compatriots would not agree with me, I feel like the Premier League & Champions League is the best show in sports right now. My goal (pun) is to recap the weekly action, highlights, 'fixtures and results' of significance, and overall trends that are affecting the league.
With the season almost halfway through, I think its clear we have a two-team race, once again. Man U and Man City are slowly starting to separate themselves from Chelsea, which initially looked like a championship contender. They started the season in great form under di Matteo with a refreshingly potent style of play (as opposed to their effective, yet agonizingly cautious defensive approach last year) led by their trio of creative midfielders - Mata, Edgar, and Hazard. Torres was even showing a glimpse or two of his Liverpool days, but after a poor run of play in England and Europe, culminating in di Matteo's canning, they are starting to look just as fragile as they were early last year. Rafa Benitez has stepped into a almost impossible situation, and I can't see them being a threat to either Manchester side when its all said and done.
Torres hasn't scored in his last 7 or 8 matches, and in my opinion, still looks quite uncomfortable on the field, especially when trying to create something for himself. When he isn't consistently finishing opportunities created by the midfield, he's a liability. Outside of Torres, Sturridge has looked promising at times, but still inconsistent and now, injured. Watching their matches, the reliable ones have been Mickel (althought a goal every year or so would help...), Ivanovic, Hazard, and most of all, Mata, who is quickly becoming a more dangerous version of his Spanish countryman, David Silva. Lack of depth, along with the day to day turmoil will keep these guys anywhere from 3-6th in the table. Too many good players to completely fall out of the picture for the Champions League next year.
What to follow after the first 15 matches or so...
Can Everton keep up their good run of play? Fellaini is the Premier League's "Most Improved Player", Baines is rock-solid, Tim Howard is American (enough said), and a lot of strong supporting players. If Jelavic can start scoring near the rate he was at the end of last season, they'll be in good shape. They've had a mediocre run over the last 5-6 matches, piling up draws, but have looked consistently dangerous in the process, although the scorelines may not show it. In most of their recent matches, they have squandered a late goal which ends up costing them, so they do need to work on putting teams away. That being said, their threatening style of play is a welcomed change from last year, when Fellaini was underperforming and Tim Cahill continued to be the most overrated, ineffective EPL center forward in recent memory. He was caught offsides more than Luis Suarez can ever hope to be.
What's going to happen with Tottenham? I was surprised by the AVB hiring this off-season, and I'm in no way sold that he's a great manager in the EPL, but maybe he was destined to fail at Chelsea? They're in fourth at the moment, which seems fortunate based on the inconsistency of their play, but not a bad spot - possibly better than last season. Bale is starting to pick it up, and when he's at his best he's every bit as valuable as a Van Persie, Rooney, Toure, Suarez, etc. Defense always seems to be the question here. Question for myself...what happened to Scott Parker? In the matches I watched last year, he seemed like the guy who took them from good to "cracking."
Pretenders or contenders? What will happen with West Brom, Swansea, West Ham, and possibly squads like Norwich? West Brom looks the most complete team out of this sampling, but Swansea has looked strong and West Ham just had a second-half for the ages with their 3-1 defeat of Chelsea. I suppose you could include Everton in this bunch, but they strike me as a more well-rounded team than these others. First-half-of-the-season shout-outs, WHAT WHAT!, go to Shane Long (West Brom), Miguel Michu (Swansea), and Mohamed Diame (West Ham). And gotta dig players like Grant Holt, who just find a way to score goals no matter who the competition might be.
What will become of Liverpool and Arsenal? Forgetting about Newcastle (nice win v. Wigan) and Fulham for a moment, I still am bullish on these two squads. With Liverpool this is how I see it. If Luis Suarez stays healthy, they will be a top 8 team, and potentially could rise to around 6....for realzz. I've watched most of their games, and Brendan Rogers style looks like it should be effective. They have shown glimpses of what it can be (see Norwich), but just don't have anyone besides Suarez who is finishing or creating in the final quarter of the field. Sterling has overachieved, especially as a 17 year-old, Gerard is better-than-average, and I've always liked Glen Johnson and their defense. Somewhat worried about their midfield. Joe Allen hasn't looked great for me, luke-warm on Shelby, and Jose Enrique seems effective until he gets near the goal (good defender tho). I think they'll fall around 7 or 8 in the table, and supporters will end the season with a good taste in their mouths regarding Rogers. Maybe some noise in the FA Cup?
With Arsenal, I think there's a lot to like. A work in progress, yes, but tons of talent and a coach I consistently like in Arsene Wenger. Something I need to come clean about - I thought the dude was German until about 3 months ago...OK, more like 3 weeks ago. Yikes (he's French). Anyways, it seems like they always take two steps forward and 1 back. Or maybe more like 1.5 steps forward and 1 step back. They're doing OK in Europe, have an attack force in Giroud, Podolski, and Walcott which, in theory, should always produce some decent chances, and a strong midfield with Cazorla and the consistently under-appreciated Arteta (who kinda looks like he puts on a small base layer of makeup and plucks his eyebrows before games...seriously, he looks like a manikin/wax statue). Oxlade Chamberlain should continue to get better, and I see glimpses with Gervinho. I've also seen some really shaky moments in front of goal...we'll see. At any rate, I think a top 4 finish is still within their grasp. Their cast of characters, which is on par with Chelsea's, only rivals Man U and Man City in quality (love using that term: If you are a football, basketball, or baseball fan exclusively, ask the nearest futbol aficionado what it means, you're not alone) and will continue to mesh and play better.
More on Manchester United and Man City after their match this upcoming Sunday - plenty to chat about there.
Waggles Top 10 (not necessarily by their current standing...how they'll end up):
Man U
Man City
Arsenal
Everton
Tottenham
Chelsea
Liverpool
Swansea
West Brom
Fulham
Thoughts? Reactions? Is there anything I wrote which seems stupid to you? Dig the feedback.
Ultimate goal here is to get a group of knowledgeable futbol fans together, talk some shop over the interweb, and hopefully find some times to get out at 7:30am on a Saturday or Sunday to watch matches like ManU/ManCity this weekend while throwing back a Newcastle or 5. Maybe while watching Newcastle?
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
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!!!!!!!
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!!!!!!!
Monday, September 5, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, August 12, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
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...
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...
Saturday, June 18, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)