NBA Draft Preview: Oden or Durant?

(NOTE: for some reason, spell check isn't working, so if there are errors, you know why. Also, I tried to post this on Friday, March 9th, but it wasn't working so I saved it as a draft. I ended up forgetting about it entirely, and just put it up this past Friday, the 16th, and made a few adjustments, so if you're wondering why the date says March 9th and I'm talking about the Suns/Mavs game, it's not because I'm psychic).

What's good people? The NCAA tournament is finally upon us, and, as always, the tournament is a chance for individuals to shine and establish themselves as future NBA greats. At the top of everyone's draft board are Greg Oden and Kevin Durant, two guys whose teams can get blown out in the first round but they'll still be the top two picks taken. The question is, who should go first? Now, I know this topic as been beaten to death, but the consensus seems to be that Oden is the "safer" pick. The reason I'm writing about this, despite the fact that we've heard a million opinions on the subject, is because I can't understand that opinion.

Let me preface this rant with this statement: Greg Oden will be the first pick in the NBA Draft. The only way it doesn't happen is in the rare event that a team with an actually decent front line wins the lottery. Looking at the teams near the bottom of the barrel, I really can only see the Bucks (with a serviceable Andrew Bogut) passing on Oden and maybe the Grizzlies because they're so offensively inept, but that's about it. He's not the "safe" pick from a basketball standpoint, but he's the safe pick for a GM's job security. The media has been hyping this kid for years, just like Lebron. No matter how great Durant turns out, no one will be held accountable for taking Oden ahead of him because of the press he's received. But if you pass on the "next great center" that has been hyped as a savior for American big men for the last 5 years, and he turns out to be better than Durant, sports media will eat you alive for failing to pay attention to their foresight. And nowadays, when sports media can impact/intimidate GMs from doing anything because of the scrutiny they'd receive, it's almost a lock that no one can pass on Oden.

As for that "consensus" thing. A lot of educated basketball writers have said Oden is the safer pick in terms of NBA production, and that's why I'm so confused. Do people watch NBA basketball any more? Times have changed. The NBA is a perimeter dominated league, and the high pick-and-roll has become the blueprint to success. Every good team runs it (Phoenix, Dallas, Detroit, Cleveland, Spurs, Miami, etc. - in fact, I don't think there was a single half court play run in yesterday's classic Mavs/Suns game where they didn't use it), and we're in a league now where a wannabe John Stockton (maybe that's a bit harsh) can win back-to-back MVPs. Looking at last year's MVP race, Elton Brand and Tim Duncan were the only two post players who even got votes. Granted, part of that is because of a lack of quality big men, but part of it has to be attributed to the perimeter-orientation of the game today. There's no denying this is a more athletic NBA than 10 years ago and schemes (both offensive and defensive) are different than they used to be, and that's where this whole Oden thing bothers me.

There is a school of thought out there that Greg Oden should go first simply because he's a center, which, along with point guard, is the most important position in the NBA. Is that really the case nowadays? I watched the Rockets get destroyed a few nights ago by the Suns because Yao was completely out of place. The speed and quickness of the Suns prevented him from ever getting comfortable, and he never impacted the game whatsoever. Granted, not every team plays as fast as the Suns, but on the same token, no center in the league today is as dominant as Yao. Even if you take that as an extreme case, there are still other situations which prove my point: some talented big men look completely lost in the NBA. Take Andrew Bynum for example. He's a nice young player with tremendous upside, but I've seen him come into games where he just looks like he belongs in another era. There's no one he can match up with defensively because he's not quick enough, and if he's not dominating offensively, Phil takes him out. Same goes for Chris Kaman, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, and a slew of other big men who can't keep up with the game, forcing their coach to adjust and use a quicker lineup. I'm not comparing Oden to these guys, but the point is it's tough for a center in the league, and in my mind, there are 3 types of centers that can make it in today's game:

1) Centers with a dynamic offensive arsenal that that makes teams pay for playing small-ball (i.e. Yao Ming, motivated Shaq)

2) Centers who are essentially converted 4's that play center in small lineups, with the speed and agility to keep up with the pace of the current NBA game (i.e. Amare Stoudemire, Jermaine O'Neal)

3) Centers who dominate defensively (particularly in help defense, since post defense means nothing now that no one actually posts up) and control the boards on both ends of the floor (i.e. Ben Wallace the past couple years, Dwight Howard).

A big man has to do at least one of those 3 things to even get playing time in today's NBA... otherwise, coaches go with a small lineup with no true center while the big man watches from the bench. Looking at Oden's game, right now he's pretty mediocre in all 3 categories. I know he has a hurt wrist, but I've seen him in high school, and I know he's not much of an offensive player, relying mainly on dunks and put backs. He's not particularly quick and doesn't run the floor the way converted power forwards do, and he's even slower than some of the more athletic big men (Hakeem, Robinson, etc.) of the past. Defensively, he's great (although it'll be interesting to see how he helps out against NBA guys who drive with authority and the intent to dunk), but he's not that good of a rebounder, often poorly positioning himself, and he doesn't have the ability or reflexes to adjust. He gets his rebounds basically by being taller and jumping higher than everyone, which won't fly in the NBA.

Looking at Durant, he fits today's game better. Talk about the high pick-and-roll dominating the league... Durant can either be the guy with the ball (a la McGrady) or the guy setting the screen (a la Dirk), either of which is a nightmare for opposing defenders. If he were in the league today, he'd be one of the 3 most complete scorers already (behind Kobe and possibly Dirk), as he possess three-point range, above average post moves, the ability to beat defenders off the dribble, and an absolutely LETHAL pull up jumper from mid range that would be one of the top 5 moves in the NBA already (I can't stress how effective it is, you just have to see it for yourself). He's a great rebounder, with a surprisingly quick leap, long arms, great timing, and the ability to snag the ball out of position. He can run the floor with the best forwards in the NBA. Defensively, he's a talented shot blocker and plays passing lanes deceptively well (especially in zones and presses) because of his length, but I admit his man-to-man D needs improvement.

The biggest X-factor that makes Durant the safer choice with the top pick is his attitude. He's got what you want in a franchise guy, playing with intensity and inspiring teammates to play hard because they believe Durant can win any game for them when he's on. He's consistently clutch, and genuinely wants the ball in big situations, even if his coach wants him to reset. As the season progressed, he began to impose his will in every game. Earlier in the year, Durant let questionable play calling and inexperienced point guard play get in the way of his dominance. There was even a debate at one point as to who should be college player of the year, with Alando Tucker and Nick Fazekas playing incredibly well. Durant silenced all of that as the season went on. When asked about the race in an interview, Durant said the kid from Wisconsin had been great. The comment reminded me of every time Tom Brady was asked about Peyton Manning when the Pats were dominant, and he'd always say the right thing to the media (praise Manning's skills, say it was a "tough game" even if it wasn't, etc.) but in the back of his mind we all could tell he was really thinking "I own that hick." Durant is a nice kid, and I'm sure his praise for Tucker was genuine, but I knew when I saw him say it that he didn't really think Tucker belongs in the same class as him. It's almost like Durant took the debate personally, and ever since he's been a one man wrecking crew, similar to how people in the early 90's actually had the balls to compare Clyde Drexler with Michael Jordan before the '92 finals ended that debate once and for all because Michael's competative nature took over.

Oden, on the other hand, is a docile big man who wasn't even the locker room leader of his AAU squad. Even this year, it's clear that Mike Conley is the guy players rally around. He says he wants to be an impact player and an all-time great, but his personality says otherwise. As much as I do like his game, you need a certain attitude to be a true franchise player, which is what you're looking for with the top pick in the draft (and I don't care what people say, you cannot learn this, you either have it or you don't, period). I feel Oden will be more like Vince Carter: a talented guy who puts up great numbers but is more comfortable with someone else being the leader. Wherever Durant goes, it'll be his team from day 1.

Don't get me wrong, I really like Oden. He's guaranteed to be a good center (along the lines of 17 and 9 with a couple blocks), but you don't pass on Kevin Durant for that. He has to either a) improve his rebounding and become Olaujuwon on D, shutting down anything within 8 feet from the basket or b) improve offensively so teams can't play small against him. I wouldn't consider either of those to be a lock, given Oden's history and personality. He has to work on his game considerably to be a dominant center in today's league. I'm not questioning his ceiling, or whether or not he should be the top pick, but how is this the safe pick over a guy who's guaranteed to be a top 10 scorer for years with a style that perfectly fits the NBA?

As for potential, that's an impossible call at this point, but let me ask this question: who's had a better career, Tim Duncan of Shaquille O'Neal? Looking at their accomplishments, they're very similar: perennial All-NBA First teamers, 3 finals MVPs, Shaq has one more ring, Duncan has one more regular season MVP... it's a tough call on paper. But here's the difference: coaches gameplan to match up with Tim Duncan, but teams completely adjusted their season plans to match up with Shaq. I'm not trying to compare Durant to Duncan or Oden to Shaq, but the idea is the same. If they both realize their potential, they'll be very similar on paper, battling for MVPs for years to come and being fixtures on the All-NBA teams. The difference is Oden could completely change the game. Even though we've never seen a guy like Durant, teams will defend him the same way they defend Dirk or McGrady. If Oden develops a solid offensive game and is dominant defensively, he can actually alter the entire dynamic of the leagues. Teams will have to stack up on 7'0 bodies just to match up with him, similar to Shaq's best years with the Lakers. He can single-handedly put an end to the small-ball concept by being such a dominating mismatch, forcing teams to use bigger lineups and slow down the pace of the game. So if I had to choose who had the higher upside, I'd take Oden for that reason... his upside in terms of impact, not talent, is higher than Durant's. But that scenario seems highly unlikely, so if I had the first pick in the draft in June, I'd take Durant, the more established guy who's game is better prepared for the league... in other words, the safer pick. I hope that all made sense.


On to a couple other thoughts about the NBA Draft:

• This kind of feels like last season's NFL Fantasy Draft, where any where in the top 3 is great, but beyond that, you're kind of screwed. In this case, getting Oden or Durant makes you a winner, but what the heck do you do with the 3rd pick? Personally, I think Joakim Noah is the 3rd best player available, but are teams looking for a guy like that with the 3rd pick? He's the perfect team player: a great defender who runs the floor like a cheetah, has a high basketball IQ, will be one of the 2 or 3 best passing forwards in the league, plays with a lot of energy, and is a vocal leader and great locker room guy. But he doesn't project into a dominant player, which is what most teams are looking for with the 3rd pick. Can you build a championship team around Noah? People seem high on Brandan Wright, and I don't understand why. Out of all the great freshmen, he seems to be the only one who thinks he's too good for college basketball. He has a clear work ethic problem, and in my mind he hasn't gotten any better since his junior year of high school. His jump shot hasn't improved and neither has his physique, and that tells me he's just not spending enough time on the court and in the weight room to be great. That's not a good sign. Again, attitude is something that you can't learn... Wright is a slacker, period, who will probably lose all love for the game when he gets a major contract (think Tim Thomas). He relies on natural athleticism and nothing more. If Chase Buddinger comes out, maybe he gets into the conversation, but no mock draft has him ranked so I assume they have reason to believe he'll be back in Arizona... but for the love of God, no one should take Brandan Wright 3rd. He's Josh McRoberts (I'll get to him shortly), just 2.5 shades darker.
• Alando Tucker is projected to go in the late first round. Hmm... didn't we go down this road before? A guy who leads a team to an overachieving season, is the conference player of the year in a major conference, an All-American with great leadership skills and intangibles, but because he's a forward with questionable shooting range, size, and limited upside, he falls to the end of the first round? Yeah, I remember this, it was like 4 years ago, and I'm sure there are a ton of GMs who wish they could have a mulligan after passing on Josh Howard. They're gonna feel the same way about Alando Tucker.
• Now that the Lakers (my only non-Philly sports allegiance) don't have a real chance to go deep in the playffs, I almost want them to tank the rest of the season, get to the end of the lottery, and nab Acie Law, because he will unjustifiably be available. He's the second coming of Chauncey Billups: a well-built point guard with the moxie (yeah, I said moxie, wanna fight about it?) to take any shot at any time. I get chills thinking of him and Kobe in the backcourt, and the only reason I'm not outright praying for the Lakers to free-fall is the fact that Mitch Kupchak is too inept to take Law even if he had the chance. Someone's gonna get great player about 6 picks later than he should've gone. I really think he's a top 5 player in this draft.
• I'm glad Josh McRoberts came back for another year. People actually had the audacity to project him as a top 5 pick in last year's draft, but the truth is out. The kid sucks. A 6'10 power forward with hops, but he's softer than a marshamallow, probably bench presses a cool 150 pounds, and has no perimeter game to play 3 in the NBA. He's Chris Anderson with a higher basketball IQ and nothing more. On second thought, it was wrong for me to compare Wright to McRoberts. No respectable baller should be compared to McRoberts, so I retract that statement. Still though, don't take Wright third.
• Guys with the highest bust potential: Thaddeus Young - freak athlete, kind of like Shawn Marion with a less effective jumper... can he survive if he ends up with a half court team? Will he ever commit to defense?; Yi Jianlian - the most athletic foreign center ever, so athletic he could actually play the wing in the NBA, but people also fell in love with Darko's athleticism... needless to say, all foriegners have a high bust potential because they come from a compltetely different game; Al Horford - is he the next Carlos Boozer or Wayne Simien? Undersized power forwards are dangerous in this league. This feels like a good time to poit out that neither of those guys were in the top 25 in their draft, so why does an undersized power forward who wasn't as effective as either of them project into the top 10 in the deepest draft in recent memory? I can't understand it; Spencer Hawes - interesting big man, but may be too slow to adjust like some other guys I've mentioned. All of these guys will probably be top 10-15 picks (assuming they come out)
• People I think will do better than expected: Tyler Hansbrough - I know he's undersized, but he's projected to go fairly late in the first round, which is too low for me. His free throw percentage and shooting form lead me to believe he has a 17 footer in his arsenal that he hasn't needed to break out because he's so dominant down low in college, reminiscent of Udonis Haslem (although I think Hansbrough is a better rebounder and locker room guy); Corey Brewer - I know he's projected to go high, but I really like him. He's a 6'8, long, super athlete who actually commits to defense. I don't think I've ever seen it before. He'll be asked to guard the best perimeter player on the other team (any position from 1-3) and I think he'll be able to handle it. He could be a more athletic Bruce Bowen, which is something you really need in today's game; Jared Dudley - after watching the Lakers collapse without Luke Walton, I realized there will always be a place for fundamentally sound, intelligent, good-locker room guys with a team-first attitude, no matter how unathletic they are. Dudley will be an important role player for some very good teams down the road; Rudy Fernandez - I've only seen clips of him, but he's 6'6 with a very quick release and moves well. He could be a taller Rip. Nick Fazekas - another guy who just understands the game. He's crafty enough to score down low despite not being that athletic, has good touch in his mid-range game, and is the best rebounder in the country in terms of getting position, Gotta love him.

Well, that's all I got for now. I know it was pretty long, but I'm an NBA junkie and can write books about the draft if you get me started. If you're one of those people who thinks this is all irrelevant because the draft isn't for months, well, you're no one of consequence. Enjoy March Madness.

Browns Offseason Wishlist

I know I said it was time to move away from football, but I really got excited about the idea of creating a wishlist for my favorite football team, the Cleveland Browns for the offseason. Besides, what is more fun that matching free agents with a team with so many holes? This would be a lot more fun than addressing say the needs of the Colts. The Browns are surprisingly in great salary cap shape for the second year in a row, even after seemingly breaking the bank last year for serviceable old men. According to Johan Clayton over at ESPN.com, the Browns have $26.2 million to spend with the expected new salary cap. The Browns also have the fortune (or misfortune depending on how you look at it) of drafting third or fourth in this year's draft. The pick will be decided by a coin flip that almost certainly will go the Buccaneers way. My personal opinion is that the Browns are getting hosed once again by the NFL as the Bucs thoroughly dominated the Browns in their head-to-head appearance proving that the Browns almost certainly were the third worst team in the NFL last year. Such is life though where front offices can't fathom such a simple concept, much like the division winners in the NBA getting better seeds than teams with better records that didn't wion their division. At least Bud Selig isn't running the NFL though. We'd have to worry about the conference that won the Pro Bowl sending a team to a Super Bowl and getting a 7 point headstart.

Let's start with the team needs.

Browns needs: QB, RB, 4OL, 2DL, CB, K

I think its fairly obvious that the Browns are quite weak along both lines. It's not completely their fault as the lines have had more injuries than I thought imagineable, but we do manage to fail to address either line in every draft since we returned to the NFL. I guess that's not entirely true as we spend our third pick on "Lunch Money" Gerard Warren in 2001. We also drafted the underweight vegan center out of Notre Dame who we traded away when we signed LeCharles Bentley. So as usual the Browns poor decisions in the draft have left us in trouble in those positions where the players did not develop into what we had hoped. Looking at the numbers though, the Browns may have been the worst offensive team this side of the Raiders. The fans love Charlie Frye because he is a local blue-collar boy who says all the right things about studying film and effort. The fact of the matter though is that he is barely a serviceable NFL starter. I actually truly believe Frye would make for the perfect backup. So no need to get rid of him and I am certain he would take well to staying in Cleveland as the backup, because he loves the area. Perhaps the biggest problem the Browns offense faces though is the running game. Clearly, the problem begins up front. Our lack of an offensive line hurts the team in every possible way. It gives the QB less time to throw, but more importantly our running backs don't have any holes to gain yards. Look at the Kansas City Chiefs, their offensive line turned Priest Holmes from a backup to the best running back in the league as his peak. I cannot overstate the importance of an offensive line. I think Phil Savage understand this as he signed 2 of the better o-line free agents last year. Unfortunately the Cleveland luck plague kicked in and Bentley got hurt in the first day of training camp sidelining him for last year and potentially even next season. I am going to write this offseason preview under the premise that Bentley won't be playing next season.

Browns significant free agents:

Rakph Brown, CB; Cosey Coleman, OL; Hank Fraley, C; Ethan Kelley, NT; Alvin McKinley, DT; Dennis Northcutt, WR; Brian Russell, S

What is curious about this list is that we could probably afford to let every single one of these players go as none of them are that good. The problem though is that each of these players plays a position where we don't have a guy ready to step in. Who would I re-sign? Ralph Brown was a scrub we signed off the street to fill in when both of Gary Baxter's knees exploded on the same play and McCutcheon went down for the season for the 5th year in a row. Needless to say, the Browns corners are fragile. I would re-sign Brown in a heartbeat, but not with the idea of him starting again. Ideally we can pick up someone in free agency (more on this later), and have Brown as our nickel back. Out of the remaining free agents, I would make a push to re-sign Fraley, Ethan Kelley, and Brian Russell. Fraley will provide insurance in case Bentley is not able to play this year as he was quasi-serviceable on the line last year. Kelley in my mind is great for depth on the line and has shown some flashes. I fully expect Brodney Pool to step up this year and claim a starting safety spot in the secondary next to Super Sean Jones, but Russell has been great at making calls and teaching the youngsters and I again would love to have that depth at safety. It is no surprise to me that the strength of the Browns is our secondary as Romeo began as the secondary coach under the Parcell-Belichik regime with the Giants Super Bowl teams. He may not have figured out head coaching quite yet, but he has coached our secondary into a serviceable unit, which says a lot for this team.

So how do the Browns begin to fill these needs? Last year saw an interesting trend where there were free agents that actually wanted to play for Cleveland and expressed that desire. While this sounds preposterous at first, the underlying theme with these players was that most of them were local boys who actually would like to see this city get a long-awaited championship. Even a punter, Zastudil, wanted to flee the wretched city of Baltimore to come home to his boyhood heroes the Browns. The Browns again see an interesting glut of local Clevelanders that are hitting the free agent market. With cap room to spend we could see an interesting dynamic unfold if we once again sign some of these players. I for one, would love to see the Browns sign one of the top corners on the free agent market and potentially have one of the top 5 secondaries in the league especially given their young age. Who should we bring in then?

Nate Clements, CB, Buffalo Bills

Clements is a local hero who attended the Ohio State University, but even more importantly grew up in yours truly's hometown of Shaker Heights. Clements is probably the second best CB on the market next to Asanta Samuel, who was recently franchise tagged by the Patriots. The Bills recently announced that they will not break the bank to re-sign Clements and I hope that the Browns are willing to spend some of that excessive cap space on bringing Nate home. Pairing the electric Clements with Leigh Bodden could prove to be one of the toughest and most underappreciated corner duos in the league.

Kris Dielman, OL, San Diego Chargers

Much of the hoopla surrounding free agent offensive linemen centers around the Bengals guard, Eric Steinbach. Dielman is another local Ohioan having attended Troy high school and has expressed his desire to come home to play for the Browns. Another interesting dynamic at play is that one of his former coaches, the Chud, is the new Browns offensive coordinator. The Chud has been rumored to have been pushing for bringing in Dielman and I find it likely that he is a solid guard as he has been blocking for Ladainian Tomlinson the past few years. Dielman also happens to be bigger than Steinbach which is something I think that bodes better for the cold weather of Cleveland. He will also be significantly cheaper than Steinbach.

As far as other local boys that may have an interest in playing at home, both Mike Doss and London Fletcher are free agents. While I don't see the Browns making a push to sign either player, Mike Doss has explicitly stated that he wants to play for the Browns next season. Well, I would be willing to sign Doss to a small contract and have him as depth in the secondary, I hope we don't overpay an injury-prone player to bring him home. There are also a few interesting unrestricted free agents at kicker. Both Rian Lindell and Josh Brown are free agents and while I doubt their teams let either player go, we would be wise to swoop in and get one of them if they don't re-sign. The Browns most important need remaining in free agency would be the defensive line.

Terdell Sands, DT, Oakland Raiders

Sands is a young defensive line widebody who has benefited greatly from playing next to Warren Sapp. He would fit in perfectly playing at the DE spot in the 3-4 and could reunite with Ted Washington and learn from another seasoned vet. Sands will likely command a pretty big fee for being relatively unknown as he is one of the better young defensive free agents available. That said, the Browns would be wise to bring him in the replace Alvin McKinley. I know its difficult to sell on bringing in a Raider as they were truly awful last year, but their defense was not too terrible upon further looks. While I would not be crushed if we were not able to sign this player, I think what stands out to me is that he is young and I like this approach to building the team with younger players who will grow together.

The Browns hopefully will be able to bring in a few other cheap players such as Mike Doss, but I see them trying to fill the remainder of their needs in the draft. I will be back with Part 2 later on to discuss who I think the Browns should be taking in the draft and the interesting dilemma that faces them in choosing between the stud RB or one of the top QBs that are available as both positions in my opinion are a big need.

February Madness

Great news! I have purchased my new computer, finally subscribed to the internet, and best of all....my new computer came with a new keyboard which means I have the letter "m" at my disposal now unlike in the past. Two things will come of this. The first is that I will start writing more frequently which hopefully will spurn Dawson to write more as well. Second, my articles will be somewhat more coherent and slightly better grammatically. There will still be errors that you are going to have to deal with because I am quite lazy when it comes to proofreading. You are just going to have to deal with it.

The other great news is that I will start to diverge from football only articles. You understand though why we were writing about only football as we were in the middle of the playoffs and football is a kickass sport. So, I figured today would be the perfect day to diverge into something else as mine and Dawson's alma mater (although he may not readily admit it), Boston College is hosting the North Carolina tar heels tonight in Chestnut Hill. Along with that, the College Gameday crew is on location in the raucous Conte Forum. I was able to catch some of the broadcast and was mildly impressed with the energy of our crowd. After watching the embarrasing performance that the students put up at the Duke game on Wednesday, I was skeptical. The hosts were feeling it though, probably because Flutie Flakes himself showed up to steal the spotlight once again. I have to laugh because once Flutie knew he was retiring over a year ago, he began showing up to the gym to play pickup basketball with regular (although incredible) student basketball players like myself. He almost always ended up on the skins team too, I have to believe that this was not a coincidence as he was more worried about running up and down the court flexing his abdominals. Do I think Flutie is overrated? No, not really, he just needs to pull a Joe Montana and disappear from the public eye for awhile. I like his school spirit though, so I will tolerate it.

I don't want to make this purely a Boston College article or even about tonight's game, but I will start my college basketball introduction by discussing tonight's game. I honestly can't see us winning the game tonight. For whatever reason we swept UNC last year and handily at that. So we may match up well with the Heels. I just can't shake the Duke game though. Coach K was able to expose our flaws with his gameplan, flaws that are much exaggerated following the release from the team of big man Akida McClain and more importantly the best shot blocker in the country Sean Williams. The guy has ridiculous hops for a guy that is 6'11, something that leads me to believe he will still be drafted. At first glance on tonight's game, your immediate thought would be that BC matches up horribly with UNC. UNC is known for the fast-tempo pushing attack. Why is this not really a factor though? The reason is that Al Skinner is actually excellent at insuring that the tempo of a game is slowed to the pace he likes. Certainly Skinner's best quality as a coach, BC has won many of a game since I have been watching by making teams play at a pace that they don't want to. This could explain why the Eagles had success against North Carolina last year. That said, I think ol Roy is going to take a page from Coach K and make sure that the rest of the team outside of studly Jared Dudley beats them. While we are not bereft of other options, by taking Dudley out of the game, the Blue Devils forced guys like John Oates to decide that he was going to launch trey bombs the entire first half. Even more disgraceful then that shot selection, was John Oates's defense. Quite pathetic, I have not seen someone at the college level fail to show on a screen as poorly as he did the other day. I think the crowd will also tire by the end of the first half like they did Wednesday when most of their buzzes wore off. I hate to be giving the fans a hard time, but we are new to this good college basketball program thing and have a lot of learning to do. I mean most of these kids in the past had spent their Friday nights watching grown men slide around on ice skates and try and play soccer with a stick. It would be an understatement to say that that sort of thing fails to enthuse me. BC will make it close though, but I see North Carolina pulling this out with their superior athleticism. And no I am not talking about Tyler Hansborough.

So who do I like this year in college basketball? I don't know if it's me or just the quality right now, but this season and last I have failed to get really excited about a team. Two years ago I was in love with Illinois' guard play and decided in November that they were going to win the National Championship. While they didn't quite do it, they gave us one of the more memorable college hoops seasons in my lifetime and played an exciting brand of ball. That Illinois Arizona game in the tourney had to be one of the best college games in the past ten years. As for this year, I really like Wisconsin but can't really see them winning the whole thing. They have good size and Alando Tucker is a monster. They also have in my view one of the best coaches in the game. Any guy that takes that program to its current level should be viewed better than he is. People don't realize quite how good the Wisconsin program has been. I don't really feel like looking up specifics, but they have been at or near the top of the Big Ten the past 5-7 years. Florida certainnly has the talent to repeat, but I don't see that happening either. It's too difficult in this day in age to repeat largely because its a one and done format in the tournament. Anything can happen, anything will happen. That's why the best college basketball minds probably never win their office pools, but consistently finish near the top. I am a big fan of UCLA because of Ben Howland and not their players. I think they will go as far as he can coach them. Without Jordan Farmar at the helm too, they will be significantly weaker in the tournament. Point guard play is enormous in the tournament.

At this juncture I want to let you all in on a secret. It's called the Izzo theorem and ever since I dreamed it up it has been remarkably perfect. Again, I am too lazy to identify proof, so you are just going to have to take my word for it and get confirmation from Dawson that it works. I mean most of my friends didn't want to believe in it and have been burned. I think Dawson himself was the first to truly benefit from the Izzo theorem. The Izzo theorem states that a Michigan State team coached by Tom Izzo will perform differently in the tournament every other year. In Year A, the Izzo coached team will enter with high expectations and subsequently be bounced in the first round. Then the following year in year B, the team will come in with low expectations partially because of their choke job the prior year and make a run to at least the Elite 8. It has been gold for at least 4-5 years that I can remember now and was absolutely verified last year when the Michigan State Spartans were set to face George Mason in the first round. I declared that Michigan St would lose, yet I didn't even pick that for myself because of suspension to that guy that nut-tapped the player in their conference tournament. Dawson was a believer though after watching my theory develop. He was the only person in our pool to take George Mason, and he therefore made in my opinion the best pick of the tournament. So what happens this year? Well Michigan St has no expectations exactly as the Izzo Theorem states. You heard it here first, Spartans in the Elite 8. It sounds more ridiculous this year than ever, but thats just been how it is, more and more ridiculous every year.

So who do I really like in college. Honestly, I think its the Big 12's year to finally break through. As a big Missouri Tigers fan it pains me to say this but I think the Jayhawks of Kansas are really dangerous. I was watching rock chalk the other day and I think I witnessed the light turn on for Brandon Rush as to how he should be the best player on the court at all times. He can do a little bit of everything, big guy that can shoot, drive, post. He is going to be dangerous in the tournament. The Kansas supporting cast is also dynamite, Julian Wright is huge and Chalmers is an oustanding defender. All things that matter in the tourney. I am still not sold on Bill Self, but the Jayhawks have disappointed their fans the past few years and this could be the year for them, followed by the inevitable departure of all of their players to the league. If it's not going to be Kansas, then I am going to go with Texas. Rick Barnes has been pushing the envelope for the Big 12 and he finally has a star in Durant. He knows this is his one shot as Durant will amost certainly be declaring for the draft. His kind of dominance is what can carry a team.

In summary, I like Kansas to win the whole deal at this point. Until I see something that dictates otherwise thats what I am going to put on the record. As for Boston College, I honestly think we will make a run as we certainly will never be this good again for awhile losing Jared Dudley. I hope for my sanity that we make some sort of run because as you know my teams are miserable and disappointing. I'm not quite prepared to talk about Keith Foulke's retirement yet, so that will come in my Indians preview. If you want a major first round sleeper pick who will probably ending up being the trendy sleeper because of stupid ESPN's over-coverage, I am going to go with Winthrop and get it on the record before everyone else. After watching Winthrop dismantle one of my favorites in Missouri St. on the road last night, I liked what I saw. I can't remember the guy's name, but what I do remember is that he didn't miss a shot. Those are the guys that bury the heavy favorites come tourney time. Start checking back for more now that I have a serviceable (actually its amazing) computer.

The most dominant athlete in the world... FLOYD MAYWEATHER

Ever since Tiger Woods watched Roger Federer dismantle Andy Roddick in the US Open finals, those two have been attached at the hip. We can't mention one without the other, and as 2006 wound down and the "athlete of the year" debate started, the dominance of Federer and Woods in their respective sport was compared and contrasted to an almost nauseating extent. It's pretty much unanimous that they're the two most dominant athletes in sports today. Part of it is a marketing ploy. They're both Nike athletes, have the same PR people, support each other, always compliment each other in interviews, and pretty much prance around like an adorable interracial couple. But in all seriousness, the praise bestowed upon them is completely justified. They've been on top of their respective sports for a while, have each endured several players that were dubbed their "rivals," and repeatedly step their game up whenever it looks like the gap between them and everyone else is closing. It's a fairly common belief that they're the two best ever at their sport (NOTE: I don't watch a lot of golf, so I'm basing that on Tiger's accomplishments, but I watch a ton of tennis, and Federer is the best tennis player ever... by far. But that's for another day), so naturally when we talk about dominant athletes, they're the first two names (and in too many cases, the only two names) that come to mind. But I have another name that belongs on any dominant list, and inexcusably, no one ever brings him up in these discussions: Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Why doesn't anyone think about Mayweather the same way they think about Federer and Woods? Well, this is a weird time in sports. Just look at some of the results across the sports world. There are historic franchises embarrassing themselves (think Celtics and Sixers), notorious choke artists becoming playoff Gods (think Kenny Rogers and Peyton Manning), and, most importantly, the entire sports hierarchy has been transformed (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL can no longer be classified as the "Big 4" with the emergence of things like... NASCAR?). Sports like tennis and golf actually get more publicity than boxing. Boxing has done a great job alienating their fans (the problems with boxing will be discussed in a later post) and unfortunately, an all-time great like Mayweather is having his legacy tarnished through no fault of is own... it's just because no one cares any more. But I'm here to make a case for Floyd as being among the most dominant athletes in the world, because I'm one of the few remaining boxing fans and it really pains me to see someone of his talent be so unappreciated in the grand scheme of things.

Now, entire books can be written explaining why Federer and Woods are so great, but there are really two things that set them apart from their peers (aside from God-given talent). First is versatility. In Tiger's most recent win streak, he's won on courses that range from 5500 yards to 7500+ yards. He came up as a power hitter, but his game has evolved to the point where not only can he outhit everyone, but if a tournament was played at a pitch-and-putt in Myrtle Beach, he'd probably be the favorite. Tennis is more consistent than golf (always the same dimensions), but Federer's game is still notably versatile. Watching him today, he's a smooth, opportunistic shotmaker who operates primarily from the baseline. However, he's good enough to win major tournaments by serving and volleying (he did... Wimbledon '03) so there really is no blueprint to his game. The guy can beat you in every way imaginable.

The second thing that stands out about these two athletes is their mental dominance. Not only are they clutch, but they're downright intimidating. We've seen numerous athletes fold under Tiger's glare. If he's in the hunt, no one can stare him down and sink a clutch putt coming down the stretch (yet he does it all the time). They get rattled because they know what Woods is capable of, and they choke trying to pre-emptively compensate for a miraculous shot by Woods. Federer also is mentally superior to every one he plays against. No one can play their game against Federer. They try to do too much because they know how great he is (like Andy Roddick coming to the net) and know they can't win any other way. Meanwhile, Federer is as calm and collected as they come, and SI had a great stat about him, noting that he's among the Tour leaders in break points saved, but isn't near the top in aces. He just makes shots when he needs to, and that's all there is to it.

Now, those are the two biggest things that Federer and Woods possess that make them transcendent dominant athletes, and any one who's actually seen Floyd Mayweather fight knows he has both. In terms of versatility, Floyd can beat you in any way possible. He's typically a defensive fighter, using his speed and reflexes to counterpunch and frustrate slower opponents. But when he needs to, he gets aggressive. I remember watching him against Philip Ndou, who was 31-1 at the time with 30 KOs and a truly promising fighter. Everyone knew that Floyd would be in danger if he did his typical defensive tactics, because Ndou is a hard, accurate stalker who could catch up to any one. What did Floyd do? He attacked from the beginning and knocked Ndou out in the 7th round. Against Zab Judah, he faced an opponent who could actually match him in speed. So Floyd made the adjustment and stalked Judah, winning every round from the 4th on. The guy even beat Carlos Hernandez with a broken hand. In all seriousness, there's nothing Mayweather can't do in the ring, making adjustments as needed and fighting completely different fights depending on who he's facing.

When it comes to mental dominance, needless to say Floyd has that too. I remember him fighting Diego Corrales in 2001. Corrales was 33-0 at the time and was entering every one's top 10 pound for pound list. It was supposed to be a dangerous fight, as Corrales stands at nearly 6 feet and has incredible power (easily the biggest, strongest Super Featherweight at the time). But when the bell rang, I was convinced Mayweather was the most intimidating athlete in the world. Right from the beginning, Floyd was landing 5 and 6 punch combos before Corrales could throw a jab. Looking at Corrales' face after witnessing Mayweather's speed in person, I knew the fight was over. He looked like Michael Spinks before the Tyson fight. Seriously, a 6 foot Super Featherweight who was undefeated and knocking every one out was TERRIFIED of Mayweather every time he had to leave his corner. Mayweather went on to knock Corrales down 5 times and win every round before Corrales' corner threw in the towel in the 10th. That's the impressive thing about Floyd. He's not intimidating by his size (like Lennox Lewis or Diego Corrales), his personality (like Tyson), or his pre-fight self-promotion. When someone is in the ring with him, and realize that no amount of sparring or video watching could prepare them for the task of fighting Mayweather, all of a sudden a feeling of hopelessness overwhelms them. It's happened pretty much every time Mayweather has taken the ring. His fights are decided mentally within 3 rounds.

Now, there's one area where Mayweather even surpasses Woods and Federer. It doesn't happen often, but I've seen opponents go stroke for stroke with Woods (most notably Vijay Singh, who passed Woods in the rankings at one point about two years ago). I've seen Rafael Nadal take Federer's best shots and come out victorious in some big moments. What's so remarkable (and scary) about Mayweather is, not only is he undefeated, but the depths of his talent haven't been touched. Every time he's in a fight that's supposed to be competative, he raises his game to a level that we didn't know existed. He DESTROYED Genaro Hernandez and Angel Manfredy, two veterans who were supposed to teach the youngster a lesson. He dominated Corrales, who went on to win titles in multiple weight classes. He dominated at 140, crushing Demarcus Corley and Arturo Gatti (both bigger and stronger than Floyd, both former World champions). He was too fast for Carlos Baldomir (the frontrunner for Fighter of the Year in 2006 before the Mayweather fight), and too strong for Zab Judah. In fact, his performance against Baldomir was so incredible that in the post-game press conference, the talk centered around him retiring after his next fight. It took a while before someone actually asked him about the Baldomir fight, and Mayweather simply replied that it was a "cake walk." One of the biggest battles in his career, and that was the only way it needed to be described. We all saw what happened, and no explanation was needed.

His only hiccup was a "controversial" victory against Jose Luis Castillo. It wasn't very controversial in classic terms, as Floyd won a unanimous decision, but Castillo came on strong in the later rounds and people thought he could've beaten Mayweather had he fought that way for 12 rounds. This was Floyd's "the gap is closing" moment, and just like Federer and Woods have done so many times, he put that talk to rest very quickly, clearly winning the rematch. This time, Castillo never even got in a rhythm, and barely touched the dancing Mayweather in 12 rounds. He showed he was superior both technically and physically, and even though Castillo remains as one of the top 10 pound for pound fighters in the world, no one mentions him in the same league as Mayweather any more.

There really hasn't been a time where we knew what we were gonna get from Mayweather. He turns his toughest matchups into his greatest moments by putting on classic performances that leave fight fans in total awe. I don't remember ever seeing a fighter like this. Granted, I'm only 22, but this guy is 37-0, faced incredible competition, won titles in 4 weight classes, hasn't ducked any body, and he gets no respect. His natural talents are obviously remarkable, as he's probably the quickest fighter in the world, not just in hand speed, but the combination of hand and foot speed, where no one comes close. He has surprising power, evidenced by his 24 knockouts despite fighting primarily defensive fights. Most importantly, he's a smart fighter who understands the game. This is where Roy Jones, who people thought was on his way to becoming one of the 10 or 20 greatest fighters ever, was exposed. Once Roy lost some speed after dropping down from heavyweight back to 175, it became clear he never really was a great boxer. He was just a physical freak of nature who never learned the nuances of the sport and has been knocked out a couple times by better technical boxers since his return to light heavyweight. That's not the case with Mayweather. He's disciplined, intelligent, and extremely tactical. He makes adjustments as needed, is always on balance with his guard up, and never lets any one make clean contact, either avoiding punches altogether or blocking them with his glove or shoulder. He puts together logical combinations of 5 or 6 fluid shots, and he's probably the most accurate puncher of this generation with the possible exception of Felix Trinidad. People with the accuracy of Trinidad aren't supposed to be able to throw 6 punches in a single combination, but Floyd can. And in the midst of all that, no one can possibly counterpunch him, because there's never an opening. Watch the Baldomir fight. Baldomir was bigger and stronger than Floyd, thought he can absorb Mayweather's punches and wait for the right time to strike. That time never came, and Baldomir was peppered with shots all night.

Mayweather combines the technical abilities of guys like Lennox Lewis and Oscar De La Hoya with the physical superiority of Pernell Whitaker. Roy Jones wasn't this dominant at this point in his career, but we acknowledged him as a genuine sports superstar and talked about his place in history constantly. Same goes for Oscar De La Hoya, who had two very questionable victories against Ike Quartey and Pernell Whitaker but for some reason boxing enthusiasts had the audacity to hypothetically match him up with Sugar Ray Leonard or a young Julio Caesar Chavez for Mexican supremacy. That was a different time... a time where a great boxer actually mattered in the sports world. Now, we're looking at a fighter who's significantly better than every one who has come along in my life time (including Jones), yet somehow he's flying under the radar. Thankfully, all this could change. On May 5th, we have another Mayweather fight that's supposed to be tough, when he goes up against Oscar De La Hoya. It's Mayweather's Jr. Middleweight debut, a division he never should have entered (most people close to him think he was at his best at 140, which was two weight classes ago), and he's fighting a future Hall of Famer. What will happen? Will Mayweather actually be tested? Or will he take his game up to yet another level, leaving us to wonder, again, where this guy's ceiling is, or if he even has one at all? De La Hoya is the biggest attraction in the sport, so people will actually be watching. If he does destroy the Golden Boy the way he's destroyed every one else who was supposed to test his talents, hopefully people will take notice, and the "most dominant" athlete debate will finally extend beyond a golfer and a tennis player, and that respect is certainly long overdue.

Super Bowl time

Whattup people. Finally, it's time for the Super Bowl. There has been a nauseating amount of coverage all over the place, including defenses, quarterbacks, players' families, fanbases, etc. One story line no one seems to know what to do with is the fact that we have 2 black coaches for the first time in the big game. On the one hand, if we talk about this as something "special," we're essentially acknowledging the inferiority of black coaches, right? I remember a Simpsons episode where Bart got an A and his parents put it on the refrigerator. Lisa got mad because all of her accomplishments go unnoticed, but the first time Bart does something right, they glorify him. Homer essentially said it's because Bart is an idiot. If we glorify black coaches for doing something right, isn't the underlying connotation that we're surprised it happened? More importantly, aren't we throwing away the whole concept of equality and being color blind by judging people's accomplishments relative to others of their race?

On the other hand, we have to fill 2 weeks with news, which is never an easy task (except for the Pats/Eagles Super Bowl, where TO injury updates and dynasty talk was actually relevant to the game). Also, if we don't make a big deal about this, we're missing the chance to shove it in the face of the NFL, a league that has been so historically reluctant to hire black coaches that rules have been implemented to force owners to interview minorities for vacancies, simply because they probably wouldn't do so otherwise. So, where should we stand on this? Allow me to answer my own question.

Let me preface this by saying loud that I'm black and I'm proud (RIP James Brown). Anyway, I do feel a big deal needs to be made of this, but only because of the other circumstances around the league. Here are 3 points that will make that last sentence make sense:

1. Like I said, owners rarely give black coaches a chance

2. In our society, we tend to innately compare people within their race, particularly if they're the minority. For example, Adam Morrison came out of college and couldn't rebound or pass. He was a one-dribble shooter with a vast array of scoring options (floaters, runners, spotting up, curling off screens, etc.) but even though he had decent range, he was much more effective inside 20 feet. For some reason, we all called him the next Larry Bird, when his game was much more similar to someone like Allan Houston. Obviously, that reason is because he's white.

3. If Jim Mora wasn't a jackass and never made that comment about wanting to coach his alma mater, I'm fairly certain the first 2 coaches to be canned this year would've been African Americans (Art Shell and Dennis Green). Throw in Romeo Crennel taking a step back in Cleveland, and that's a lot of bad press for black coaches.

With that said, I think it's important to acknowledge the significance of two black coaches going against each other in the Super Bowl. Normally, I wouldn't, but isn't it possible that owners compare black coaches to other black coaches the same way we compare white basketball players to other white basketball players even when they really have nothing in common? Isn't it possible that owners who are already reluctant to give African Americans a chance would be even more hesitant to do so if they can't shake the miserable failures of Shell and Green from their memories? I'm not saying it's important like I'm some kind of civil rights activist, but I'm saying that African Americans deserve a chance, and if their failures are given intense media attention (and they were... the Raiders were blasted all year for having the worst team in the league and possibly the worst offense ever and the Cardinals were considered underachievers because too many idiots thought they could make the playoffs even with a rookie qb and no offense live, and even Romeo Crennel was under fire in only his 2nd year as the coach for the worst franchise in the AFC... and lets face it, no one from the Parcells/Belichick school of coaching should be under fire after 2 years), their success should be acknowledged as well to embed it in the mind of NFL owners that they can coach just as well as white men.

Granted, I hope for a day where none of that will matter, where the failure of a few black coaches wouldn't have any effect on future candidates. Personally, I don't think we're there yet. If this were any other year, I wouldn't think Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy needed special recognition, and we can just be happy that two good guys made it. However, I think there's a possibility that Shell, Green, and Crennel would pop into the mind of owners interviewing minorities, giving them more justification for their racist hiring procedures (and there's really no other way to put it, sadly), so we need to embrace this as a step towards equality. The message isn't that black coaches are in the Super Bowl because they are better than white coaches (so hopefully Wilbon stops with the whole "black coaches have a higher winning percentage" crap, although I'm not even sure if that's true any more after this year), or that they're different. The message is IT'S THE SAME THING. Some African American coaches will fail (Shell, Green), and others will succeed (Smith, Dungy). It's the same crapshoot you get with white coaches. With equal media attention given to the successful ones and the failures, hopefully that point will get across and coaching candidates can all be considered equally, with the right job going to the man with the best credentials and the best football mind, regardless of skin color.

Anyway, enough of that. On to the game. I'm taking the Colts with the points. Why? a few reasons.

1. Rex Grossman struggles against any thing that resembles a pass rush. Having Freeney and Mathis attacking him all day certainly doesn't bode well

2. The Bears are really a big play offense. They rarely sustain drives of the 12 play, 84 yard variety. They rely too much on going deep to compensate for Grossman's mediocre (at best) accuracy, and the Colts' D is just too fast to give up big plays.

3. I know they kept Brees in check, but the fact is the Bears struggle against the pass. Steve Smith killed them last year. Tim Rattay scorched them for 3 4th quarter touchdowns this year. Their secondary is very average without Mike Brown. That's not enough to stop Peyton Manning, who has all the confidence in the world after beating Belichick, not to mention he can put less pressure on himself because he knows he finally has a solid defense.

4. I don't think the Bears have such a huge advantage in the running game that every one seems to think they have. The Colts have good balance. They use Addai on the stretch plays to get outside, and if that's not working, they can switch to Rhodes for a more physical, up the middle attack (like they did against Baltimore on that game sealing field goal drive). If Urlacher and Briggs are too fast and Addai can't turn the corner, they can still use Rhodes to exploit Tommie Harris' absence (something Sean Peyton should've lost his Coach of the Year award for not doing enough).

So, I think Peyton gets his win and silences his critics, Tony Dungy gets the redemption he deserves, Edgerrin James finally wonders aloud why the hell he took the money and ran to Arizona. Colts 27, Bears 14. Reggie Wayne MVP (going against the grain there).

Enjoy the game fellas, and enjoy Prince at halftime. Hey, I know halftime shows suck, but if there's one thing I know (other than the fact that halftime shows suck), it's that Prince is a great performer. If he can't breathe life into the program, they might as well scrap it and opt for a magic show or something.

Super Bowl

The Super Bowl is finally here after I had almost forgotten about football with the unnecessary week in between the game. At least we aren't talking about college football though where there has never been a legitimate national champion save maybe Texas last year. Did I say Texas? I meant Vince Young. Forget the rest of the team, Vince should be the one that gets to take the trophy with him. But I digress, I am sure when next college football season starts, I will rip apart the college system. Don't get me wrong, I think college football could be the greatest and best sport to watch. Anyways Super Bowl. I've managed to avoid a lot of the media coverage that can ruin the game for you, largely because I have been working. This commitment can also explain my lack of posts recently, but have no fear, my new computer is on the way.

As for this game, I am actually very excited. This is the first time in awhile where I can remember that I will be happy if either team wins. On one hand, I'd love to see Peyton manning shut up people who think that he didn't win immediately in his career that this somehow diminishes his accomplishments and abilities. Let's get one thing straight. Football is a team sport, Peyton's past losses in the playoffs were to great teams, and it's hard to fault the man. I know some will disagree, but Peyton manning is the best quarterback in the NFL, regardless of tonight's outcome. I also would like to see Tony Dungy win because he is an outstanding coach. He nearly beat the unstoppable '99 Rams team that had one of the best offenses ever. He unfairly was removed as the Buccaneers coach and had to watch them go on to win the Super Bowl with Chucky at the helm. So yes, I'd love to see Tony win it especially after all that he has been through personally with his family. As I'm writing this and watching ESPN, I have to mention that Ray Lewis just made a great point. I know I had to stop and do a double take. His comment though was forget black or white right now, both Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith are good people. Well said, Ray. I think instead of worrying about the coach's skin color, lets highlight the great people in the game and not the douche bag coaches like Belichik, even if he is a smart coach.

As for the Bears, I would like to see them win for a few reasons including selfish ones. First, I have to admit I have an affection for Chicago fans. They remind me in some ways of Cleveland fans mainly because of the midwest personality that you can tell is prominent among both fans. Both fanbases are good people, but don't care about beig obnoxious when there team is playing. Both fanbases are also fickle, in that one second you think you have the best team in history, the next you think it's over and that nothing good will ever happen to one of your team's. I also would like to see the Bears win, because I was one of the first people to hype the Bears a few years ago. I know I don't proof in writing, so again you will have to take my word for it, but before the Bears breakout year, I had hyped there defense to no end, and picked them to make the NFC championship game. This was right at the same time that most football "experts" picked them to finish last. I do have proof in writing of that. The Bears didn't quite make the NFC championship last year, losing to Steve Smith, I mean the Panthers in second round. I also took that Bears D in my fantasy draft and they helped me hide the fact that I had my worst draft ever, and I still managed to make the playoffs. So thank you Bears. As for picking sleepers, I want to highlight that both Dawson and I are experts at it having picked a bigtime sleeper correctly over the past few years when we started making NFL picks before the season. my sleepers this year were the Eagles and Titans, both of whom were bad last year and both had very good seasons relative to what the experts predicted. I am a little dissapointed that I didn't discover the Saints, but at the time it wasn't fully certain that Brees woudl be healthy.

I don't know who is singing the national anthem, but that is usually very well done at the Super bowl, so I look forward to that. I have low hopes for the artist formerly known as Prince at halftime, but its not really his fault. If you can't make Paul mccartney or the Rolling Stones any good at halftime, then I think the whole concept is a lost cause unless you get Scarlett Johannson up there showing off a lingerie catalogue. After the wardrobe malfunction of a few years back, I think this movement is a lost cause. The commercials also be better because they have sucked the last few years. Bud has consistently produced the best commercials, but still nothing like the frogs of days old and then when they added the iguana. Good stuff. I don't want to see any more commercials with monkeys or cavemen though. I'm tired of appealing to the weak-minded and easily entertained. I always enjoy movie trailers too, but unfortunately Indiana Jones 4 hasn't started filming yet, so I will have to wait for next years Super Bowl.

As for my pick, I am taking the Colts. I am taking the Colts with the spread. Bill Simmons, the biggest Colts hater alive, picked the Bears. That doesn't bother me since he hates Peyton, but I don't like that he tried to justify it with anything other than I hate Peyton manning. His reasoning was that he didn't want to go with the guy with a shaky record in the postseason. Oh really, Bill? So you are going to back Rex Grossman instead? I know Grossy gets a bad rep, but he is not in the same league as manning. When I break it down by position I think you paint a clearer picture. QB - huge edge Colts. RB - I am going to say draw, I think both teams running games are strong to quite strong. WR - huge edge Colts. O-line - slight edge Colts. I was going to say draw, but I picture Rex Grossman seeing a pass rush and running away. D-line - Slight edge Bears. If Tommie Harris were playing, it'd be a huge edge, but without him, this Dline is much less intimidating. Plus the Colts have a great pass rusher in Dwight. LB - Huge edge Bears. Probably the only major advantage I see for the Bears. Briggs and Urlacher are maniacs. CB - Slight edge Bears. I don't know if they are good enough to cover marvin and reggie though. Safeties - Colts. Without mike brown, the bears safeties are mediocre. The Colts also have my man Bob Sanders. So with all of that said I think the Colts can throw on the Bears. Especially in warm weather. I think given a better climate last week, the Saints would have pulled it out, but theres a reason winning in the regular season matters and that is so you can play at home where you are comfortable in the playoffs. Except for the Super Bowl. If I were NFL commissioner I would consider swithching the venue to the team with the best record's home.

So there it is. Peyton wins, Pats fans shutup. I think its going to be a great game, however I don't think it will come down to the very end. If it does, lets not forget that the Colts have Vinatieri on their side. I will be satisfied if the Colts win, and them I will never root for them again. I think once manning wins, that will narrow my list of teams or people I want to win to the Browns, Ladainian tomlinson, and marty shottenheimer. Don't think that this is the end of my football posts either. I will have a full offseason Browns wishlist ahead, as well as Browns-only mock draft and then a blog covering the draft on draft day. So there is a lot of football to look forward to. That said, Dawson and I need to prove our expertise in all sports, so my future articles will start to focus more on college hoops and baseball, while I will leave most of the NBA stuff to Dawson. We are both great basketball minds, but Dawson is an enormous NBA fan, while I am a passionate college fan. I will be sure to write an article about Lebron James and the Cavs in the future and why I think Lebron is saving his energy for the playoffs. So enjoy the game. If you are near any girls (or God forbid a man) that says "I just like to watch the commercials", please do everyone a favor and dump some gatorade on that person's head. And then make them leave. Unless you are at their house, at which point you should go make yourself a ham sandwich with mustard.

Conference Championship Picks

I want to go ahead and make sure I disclaim something before I make my picks. I have probably picked against the New England Patriots every time since they beat the Rams in the Super Bowl in 2001. That may lead you to believe that the Pats are my least favorite team and that I am clearly biased. This is not the case though as my least favorite teams are as follows. The Ravens are clearly my least favorite team in all of sports followed close behind by the Steelers. Not so close behind is the Bengals, however I still like to see teams from Cincinnati, Kentucky lose. Why then have I not picked the Patriots ever in important games? I think there are two reasons. The first is that I went to college in Boston and grow apathetic to teams that I consistently have to deal with their fan bases when I am not a fan of that team. It so happens that Boston fans care very passionately about sports even if some of them are clueless, which can do wonders to my rooting interest in a team. I will admit that I was rooting for the Red Sox to win in 2004, but I think that more so I didn't have to listen to all the bullcrap about how tough it is to be a Red Sox fan. Oh really, rooting for the Red Sox must be so hard. Oh, but wait you have had the experience of rooting for one of the few dynasties in sports history in the Celtics and have managed to win 3 Super Bowls. Even though I am young lets talk about your favorite teams not winning jack since 1964 and thats only if you count the AFL Championship. If you don't, (then you are a moron) then Cleveland's last championship dates back to one of the most underappreciated baseball teams in the 1948 Cleveland Indians. The underratedness of those Indians is for another time and place, but I think you see the point I am trying to make. Back on topic, the second reason for why I always pick against the Pats dates back to the Oakland game in the 2001 playoffs. I understand that according the the rule book, that the tuck was called correctly, and I also understand that this rule still is exactly the same, but let's call that what it really was, a fumble. I have to agree with John madden on this one, that instant replay has had the side affect of rules commitees looking for reasons to call a play something its not. Charles Woodson made a great play that should have won them the game. Instead of the heroics of one player who stepped up and made a playoff game winning play, the referees mattered more.

Colts over Patriots
Here I go again with the pick, but I had to do it. I am a Peyton manning supporter and I don't reall understand all of the hatred for him. Shouldn't we direct all of our anger to someone like Rae Carruth or Jamal Lewis? Sure, manning has played poorly in a number of the Colts playoff losses, but why does he deserve the hatred for this? Well this is the time and place for the Colts. Their expectations are slightly lower than in years past and they are playing at home. Despite the fact that the Chargers were the best team in the NFL this year, it should have to be no other way for manning to win a Super Bowl than to go through the Patriots. The Colts have won the last two years against the Pats (at Foxboro no less), but this is different. It's January and manning fears Belichik. Why then am I taking the Colts? Surprise, its their defense! I think a healthy Bob Sanders has completely changed the presence and confidence of this team. 5 ft 8 and he runs around and kills people. I would call him a combination of Brian Dawkins and Cleveland native Earl Boykins. The Colts D s vastly underrated because of their poor regular season performance, but I am certain Belichik is aware of this. I expect the Patriots to try and reestablish their running game because of the speed of the Colts. my advice to them to would be to forget Corey Dillon and let their young stud runner, laurence maroney, have a field day on turf. maroney is one of the best in the league already at using the stiff arm and its this kind of presence that is needed to beat up a smaller colts D. The problem with this strategy of course is that if manning has any sort of passing rhythm with wayne and a potentially healthy Harrison, a running game might not be able to keep up. I think on paper the Colts should be easy favorites to cover a spread, but it is January and if the game is close late, then I have no doubt the Patriots will pull it out. That said, I think the Colts finally overcome and make a trip to the Super Bowl.

Saints over Bears
This game was even tougher for me to pick because almost everyone seems to be picking the Saints. All I can think about when I envision this game though is Rex Grossman everytime he sees a pass rush. The man is afraid to take a sack and hold onto the football. The most important players in this game is Chicago's offensive line, because the Saints have two very solid pass rushers in Charles Grant and tOSU alum Will Smith (not the pursuit of happyness (sp?) star who has no connection to Ohio.) The Saints secondary is definitely the team's weakness but guess what? They are facing Rex Grossman. my advice to them is don't let Bernard Berrian beat you deep and you will be making a trip to the Super Bowl. Every highlight of Rexy that I saw this year was on a play where he had siginicant time to wind up and gun it deep into the hands of the long-striding Berrian. Every highlight of a bad Rex play that I saw was when a pass rush forced him to make a quick decision and he threw the ball to the other team. I keep hearing how the cold weather of Chicago willl be a huge advantage for the Bears, but I actually think it helps the Saints as Deuce mccalister will deservedly see more opportunities and he should succeed as the Bears d-line has not been able to do as much without their best player in Tommie Harris. What it comes down to though often times is the quarterback in these playoff games. Unfortunately for the Bears, they are badly outclassed in this one. Keep Brees on his Chargers team this year and they win the Super Bowl. No doubt in my mind. Put Brees on a New Orleans team that went 3-13 last year and voila, Super-Bowl bound. Don't be surprised if a few calls go the Saints way tomorrow either. Even though I certainly believe the games aren't rigged, I do think that the NFL and other leagues may have a tendency to "help out" teams that they view as being a better option in the premier event of the year. I don't have much of a rooting interest in this game, so you can take this pick more seriosuly than you necessarily would with the AFC championship.