Let's go to the Polls II

Question 1: Will the Bucks make the playoffs without Michael Redd?

Result:
No: 93%
Yes: 7%

The reason the result of the poll is so pronounced is pretty clear: Milwaukee is a one-man team that just lost their best player. Well, I'll say right now that the Bucks do have other scorers in Richard Jefferson and Charlie Villanueva on the roster, and more importantly, almost no competition in the lower half of the Eastern Conference. The Nets, Knicks, Bobcats, Bulls, Raptors and Pacers are the teams within 3.5 games of Milwaukee... wow. I'm really scared. Look, I realize that it looks bleak in Milwaukee without Redd, and that 77% of fans in Wisconsin agree, but note that while the top of the East has improved, the bottom and middle are just as mediocre as ever.

Verdict:
Good call, but not as obvious as the results suggest.


Question 2: Are the Nuggets contenders or pretenders in the West?

Result:
Contenders: 52%
Pretenders: 48%

Can anybody really be a pretender in the West? Especially after dumping one of the NBA's great losers for a player with a Finals MVP under his belt three games into the season? With Iverson this team was never a contender, because score-first Point Guards don't win championships... especially when there's already an elite scorer on the roster. With Billups, this team definitely is a legit threat, since the balance, chemistry and hierarchy are much better with a true PG.

Verdict:
Good call, but Denver could use more veteran depth.


Question 3: What is the best team in the Big East?

Result:
Pittsburgh: 32%
UConn: 29%
Lousville: 28%
Marquette: 6%
Syracuse: 4%

Marquette has the best record, but you are blind if you think they're the best team. Syracuse has exceptional talent, but also relies on some of the most inconsistent players in the country (Harris, Devendorf)... although Jonny Flynn is electrifying and amazingly improved from his Freshman year. Louisville is red hot in conference play, but were weak out of conference and still don't have great Guards or depth. Pitt is really good, but is still largely a three-man team (Young, Blair, Fields). UConn in my opinion is the best team in the country. They have 7 guys who are legitimate scorers. When you have that many guys, you don't need to rely on certain players to carry you. That was why I picked Kansas last year. A.J. Price is a great PG with a talented backup in Kemba Walker. Hasheem Thabeet and Craig Austrie are excellent defenders. Jerome Dyson is able to catch fire faster than a matchstick and Jeff Adrien has been one of the nation's most consistent and underrated post scorers for three years now. Pair that with the great experience and coaching on this team, and I'm sticking with my preseason pick.

Verdict: Bad call... believe in UConn


Question 4: Which Book are you more likely to read?

Result:
Joe Torre's: 86%
Kirk Radomski's: 14%

Note to all publishers: America is over the steroid scandal. Honestly, we all know everyone from 1995 to 2002 was on steroids... why do we still need further evidence of this. A mortician doesn't need to read an obituary to find out somebody is dead... it's right in front of him.

Verdict: Good call. And Luis Gonzalez was on steroids.


Question 5: How would the Chiefs fare in 2009 if coached by Mike Shanahan?

Result:
Better, but still bad: 62%
Borderline playoff team: 25%
Another top-five pick: 9%
Playoff lock: 3%

Well, at least we know for sure that 3% of America is retarded... or from Kansas. Honestly, how can a team that goes into a season starting 5 rookies and Tyler Thigpen at QB be disappointed by a 2-win season? Did Chiefs fans really think they were a good football team going into the season? Bill Belichick couldn't have taken the 2008 Chiefs to the playoffs. If Shanahan takes the Chiefs job, he still has an average QB, no O-Line, zero pass rush and a secondary young enough to be a group of redshirt college seniors. Shanahan went 8-8 with a Pro Bowl QB, a great O-Line and Champ Bailey... Rebuilding takes time Kansas City.

Verdict: Good Call

Let's go to the Polls

I always vote on those polls you see on ESPN.com, and sometimes I'm absolutely shocked to see that in some cases the majority of American sports fans have absolutely no perspective or idea what they're talking about when they vote. (Note to commish: stop letting fans vote for a game they don't even watch.) While at other times ESPN just feeds sensationalist stories (Note to viewers: ratings get higher advertising revenue)

So in this poll I'll give my opinion on some of ESPN's most recent polls.

Question 1: What was Wednesday's most surprising hoops result?

Result:
Va Tech beats Wake: 65%
NJIT snaps 51-game losing streak: 35%

Every cliche sports movie about lovable losers who become champions somehow always has that one kinda mediocre team that they play early in the season and beat before gaining momentum and getting really good. It's kinda surprising, but nobody is really that shocked. At the end of the year, they beat the great domineering and everybody goes crazy. In this case, NJIT is the bad team at the start of the year, Bryant University is the mediocre team they beat. Va Tech is the improved team that beats the domineering team: Wake Forest (who just happen to wear black unis).

Verdict: Good Call

Question 2: Which Patriots QB will start more games next season?

Result:
Tom Brady: 65%
Matt Cassell: 35%

Ok, there are several scenarios to consider:

1. Cassell gets traded and Brady starts the year (I doubt Cassell is traded if Brady's rehab is slow)
   
2. Cassell stays around as insurance in case Brady isn't healthy for the opener and plays the Matt Schaub role until he leaves in 2010.
   
3. Brady gets traded and takes a while to get healthy, while Cassell starts for New England (Brady only gets traded if his rehab is slow)

So, all I can do is think which one of these scenarios is most likely. I think it depends on Brady's rehab, and since that is a relative unknown, I see Belichick keeping Cassell around, just in case, with Brady getting the edge as soon as he's 100%.

Verdict: Good Call

Question 3: Who is the best Second Baseman in the last 25 years?

Result:
Ryne Sandberg: 27%
Roberto Alomar: 25%
Craig Biggio: 22%
Chase Utley: 15%
Jeff Kent: 12%

Chase Utley is great now, but you can't give him that distinction after just over 5 years in the league. Craig Biggio has good career numbers, but I think that's more due to accumulation throughout a lengthy career. Also, has any pitcher ever seen Craid Biggio in the lineup and worried about facing him? He gets votes because he has played tons of positions in the field, is old school and has been beaned more than anybody else. America loves tough guys. Jeff Kent is the best power hitter of the bunch, and I think should be in the Hall of Fame, but when comparing him with some of the other guys on this list, you have to consider his fielding, which was never his strong suit.

So that leaves it to Alomar and Sandberg. I initially voted Alomar, because the Vizquel/Alomar combo in Cleveland was one of the greatest things to watch in the 90s and because he's a career .300 hitter. I was too young to watch Sandberg play, but looking at his numbers, he looks like an 80s version of Robbie Alomar with more power but a lesser batting average. The fact that Sandberg has an MVP gives him the edge on paper, but there was debate as to whether Sandberg was deserving of the HOF. I don't see Alomar being debated at all.

Verdict: Good call, but I voted otherwise.

Question 4: Is Jeff Kent a Hall of Famer?

Result:
Eventually, but not first ballot: 59%
Not going to make it: 25%
First ballot 16%

He has the all-time record for Home Runs by a Second Basemen. So what if he wasn't a great fielder? Mike Piazza leads all Catchers in Home Runs and he was the worst fielding catcher in the past 15 years. Kent had his best years when Barry Bonds was on his team and dominating headlines. That is the reason why Kent won't get in on the first ballot, because he isn't a sexy name. But I maintain the argument: if Piazza is a first ballot guy, then so is Kent.

Verdict: Bad call, but HOF voters are too exclusive to put him in first ballot.

Question 5:

What is the best one-loss team in College Basketball:

Result:
Duke: 32%
Pittsburgh: 27%
UConn: 18%
Wake: 13%
Oklahoma: 10%

OU is still virtually a one-man team. Wake has the size and talent, but the experience is missing and their resume isn't as impressive as the others. Plus, I'll take returning powerhouses over emerging powerhouses any day. Personally, I think Duke has a decent resume, and that win over Georgetown looks good, but when you remember that Greg Monroe (a huge mismatch for undersized Duke) was basically removed from the game by foul trouble, it loses it a little. Duke still doesn't have a good big man (Singler is a SF in the NBA) and a team that relies as much on outside shooting as they do won't ever get my vote. The reason they win this poll is because they're Duke, and have the largest fan base in the nation. They're the Notre Dame of Hoops.

In my opinion that makes it between Pitt and UConn. I think Pitt is a three-man team, while UConn has 7 guys who could be stars of their teams if they played for teams like Iowa, Kansas State, Cal, or NC State. They have incredible depth and a lot of experience, and that was the same reason I picked Kansas last year in November and it's the reason I picked UConn this year.

Verdict: Bad call, Notre Dame lost 10 straight bowl games because they were overrated. Get where I'm going with this?

Thoughts on the NFL

My New Year's resolution this year was to be more ambitious. I've followed through with that by scheduling tougher classes, producing more play-by-play sports at ComRadio and even am trying to get started working at a second radio station.

However, I feel that I haven't been consistent enough with my blog posts, so I'll try to get weekly thoughts on different sports and issues. This might be kept up... but who knows... I might start drinking more often again... (as I write this I just grabbed a Lionshead out of my fridge... not the greatest beer but definitely the best value in Central PA at $11 for a 12-pack of above average beer...at least I've always been good at not letting my mind wander).

So without further ado: My thoughts on the NFL (in bulletproof form, of course...people with short attention spans love bulletpoints):

• Success in the NFL Playoffs officially has nothing to do with talent, coaching or home-field advantage... honestly, momentum has become the only thing that matters... and apparently even the Cardinals can gain it.

• Donovan McNabb is officially 1-4 in NFC Championship Games, but if you're trying to blame this one on Donovan...sorry... not this time... and if you're gonna point at some of the bad passes he made, just go back and check out the three great throws he made for every bad one that got away.

• Pittsburgh became the premier NFL franchise the second Tom Brady got injured

• Baltimore beat a Miami team that hadn't played anybody, a Tennessee team that handed them the game on a silver platter 3 times before the Ravens finally accepted, after some gentle persuasion from the guys in pinstripes, and had a rookie QB on the road against a team he failed to beat already twice that season... How did anybody think Baltimore was going to win that game?

• MYTHBUSTERS: It is very difficult to beat a team three times on one season. EEEEH! wrong. Teams that have been in this position since the 1970 merger are 12-7, a 63% winning percentage. Statistically, what Pittsburgh did last Sunday is more likely to happen than Jay Cutler, Matt Ryan or Kerry Collins to complete a pass.

• Larry Fitzgerald might be the best WR in football, but I am not going to go as far as to say he definitely is, as most media pundits have proclaimed. People credit Kurt Warner's success to his receivers, but almost nobody credits Fitzgerald's success to his QB. I think both Andre Johnson and Steve Smith still have to be considered in that argument because their QBs aren't as good as Fitz's. This is why it is very hard to compare WRs in the NFL.

• Randy Moss, however, is unquestionably the most talented WR this year, and arguably ever...if his effort was only there. He's a lot like Darryl Strawberry in that way... once-in-a-lifetime talent, but Jeff Lebowski effort

• Darren Sproles' success just keeps reminding me that RBs in the NFL grow on trees. Blockers have gotten so big, so athletic and so polished that any RB who had success in college should succeed, if he has half-decent blockers. I can think of several recent cases of college star RBs that had the production, but not the tools scouts look for, and still have had success in the NFL.... Steve Slaton, Ray Rice, Selvin Young... just to name a few

Dolphins & Falcons - Bad Sequels in the NFL

Young teams that suddenly overachieve from cellar dwellers to playoff contention are always surprising, but not uncommon. Common, however is that they usually struggle the next year.

They're like terrible sequels to movies that had surprising success to begin with. (I'm talking Caddyshack, American Psycho, Ace Ventura or even Legally Blond) It happens time and time again, but nobody is picking up on it. Remember when the Browns were supposed to win the AFC North? Did people forget that the Jets went 10-6 in 2006 under some guy named Eric ManGenius??? It seems like ancient memory when the Bengals were an up and coming team that went 11-5... and that the Panthers were going to be a perennial contender... and that the Saints were arguably the favorite to go to the Super Bowl before the 2007 season.

There are several simple reasons for this supposed Ugly Duckling transformation:

1. Teams overlook them
   
2. They play an easier schedule due to their low finish the year before
   
3. Young players are more likely to gell more throughout a season than veterans, especially when there's momentum.
4. Players who are just experiencing success and stardom haven't grown inflated egos
   

There are also simple reasons why they tend to underwhelm the next year:

1. Front Offices overrate their personnel and don't make the many moves that had made them successful to begin with (see Saints)
   
2. They play a tougher schedule with a higher previous finish (see Browns)
   
3. Opposing teams suddenly take notice of them and key in on the nuances that were previously overlooked, especially early in the year, and by the time opponents start overlooking them again, they've already lost all possible momentum to get back in contention.
4. The players grow bigger egos and chemistry suddenly becomes a problem (see Bengals, Kellen Winslow)
5. Young players suddenly are playing under pressure that they had not previously faced. (see Everybody)
   

For the aforementioned movies the same thing applies. They featured young, relatively undiscovered stars, low expectations, little room for disappointment (I think Miss Congeniality is the greatest victim of this) and an interesting or unique plot. Then, when a sequel is made, the actors are either overhyped or too big-headed to even appear in them. Writers and directors try to play out the same angle that worked in the first movie, but doesn't work a second time around, and expectations are unfairly higher.

The teams that fall under this curse this year are the Miami Dolphins and the Atlanta Falcons.

Check out the teams Miami beat this year: New England (when the Wildcat freaked everybody out), San Diego (when they weren't a good football team), Buffalo, Denver, Seattle, Oakland, St. Louis, Buffalo again, San Francisco, Kansas City, New York (when Favre decided he to become even more overrated than he already was). Strength of Schedule: Check.

Did good teams overlook them? Absolutely. Especially the teams that thought they were good based on the previous year's success, but really were pretty pedestrian this year. (see New England, San Diego, Denver)Overlooked: Check.

How was the chemistry? Exceptional. The wildcat offense sprung life into a very young roster that rallied around a QB with no arm, a RB addicted to weed and a LB with more dumb opinions than Bill O'Reilly.

Don't get me wrong, there's talent here... but do you really expect them to actively try and improve their roster? No way. ''We went 11-5, we're set at ___ position''

What does their schedule look like next year? Instead of playing the AFC West and NFC West, they'll be playing the AFC South and the NFC South. Instead of playing the Houston Texans, they'll be playing the Tennessee Titans... oh... and they get to play the Steelers, too..

Do you really see teams struggling to defend the Wildcat next year? Especially with the greatest defensive minds in the world having eight months to think about it. Do you really think Chad Pennington will produce when there's pressure to supply results. Do you really think Joey Porter won't tear that locker room apart if they face a rough start? Can you name one member of their secondary... or receiving corps? Other than Ted Ginn, I can't, but I can tell you they're young and their coaches like them... and they won't be supplanted by better players in the off-season.

Conclusion: There is no way the Dolphins sniff the playoffs next year

I think the Falcons actually have a better shot at maintaining respectability, but remember that every year the NFC South's biggest loser has made the playoffs the next... and stabled off after that (see Panthers, Saints), why hasn't this happened to Atlanta yet? Oh wait, I forgot that Jim Mora Jr. happened...

Also remember, that teams took forever to realize how dangerous Matt Ryan, Michael Turner and Roddy White really were this past season. People are often slow to pick up on drastically improved play by young players on previously bad teams... imagine underestimating THREE of them.

And if you want to make the argument that Matt Ryan was under more pressure last year because he was replacing Michael Vick, stop it. If Atlanta had gone 5-11 nobody would have said a thing. If Atlanta goes 5-11 next year Mike Smith is on the hot seat.

Speaking of Mike Smith, do you really trust an X's and O's guy to suppress young egos? There are two types of Head Coaches in the NFL: X's and O's guys that are expert strategists and brilliant football minds (Mike Holmgren, Sean Payton, Andy Reid...) and Fire and Brimstone guys that are great speakers, motivators and leaders of men(Mike Singletary, Tom Coughlin, Denny Green). The best coaches are masters at both (Bill Bellicheck, Bill Cowher, Bill Parcells, people named Bill...).

Mike Smith is a strategist. Coaches like him commonly struggle with maintaining chemistry if there's a cancer. (see Wade Phillips, Andy Reid, Marvin Lewis) That's not always a problem, especially if there's already a veteran nucleus, great leadership and a ''been there before attitude in the locker room'' (see Colts, Chargers, Seahawks). But on a team where egos are bound to flair over the off-season, expectations are too high and cancers lurk at OLB and RB, Smith isn't the type of coach I trust to suppress that potential blowup. Romeo Crennel was the most recent victim of this.

Plus, if you look at Atlanta's roster, there are holes EVERYWHERE. They were just covered up by momentum and chemistry, which can offset talent in the NFL during a season (but not the next). Their offensive line is very patchy other than Justin Blalock, Michael Jenkins is somehow still starting at WR, some guy named Justin Peelle (how the #@%& do you even pronounce that?) is their TE and Grady Jackson is still in the NFL apparently and is starting for the Falcons. Their #1 CB is Dominique Foxworth, who I keep confusing for the late Darrent Williams (RIP) for some reason. It just can't be good for a player if someone who watches as much football as I do thinks he's dead everytime I see his name.

Basically what I'm saying is, if you're an Atlanta fan and you expect 15.5 games of healthy John Abraham and 16 sacks, you're dreaming. If you think Roddy White faces single coverage ever again with those receivers, you're dreaming.

''Wait a minute, how do you know Atlanta won't pick up some receivers in the off-season?''. Because other than T.J. Houshmandzadeh, there's nobody out there and young up-and-coming teams don't like to gamble on big names, fearing it could disrupt chemistry and/or cripple the franchise financially. Also, I bet you the coaches like the guys they're working with, and I'll tell you that it's highly unlikely any receiver you draft will provide more impact than Jenkins. Guys like DeSean Jackson, Calvin Johnson and Anquan Boldin are rare immediate impacts. Most rookie WRs take a year or two to get going (see Greg Jennings, Reggie Wayne).

Conclusion: The Falcons will be a .500 team next year.

I don't hate Atlanta or Miami. I'm a Philly fan. These teams mean nothing to me personally. I'm just pointing out an unrealized trend that needs to be addressed. Just watch and see... I'm sure Kung-Two Panda and Tropic Thunder 2: Revenge of the TiVo will be must-see's as well.