Saturday, February 26, 2011

Note to Lebron; It's About the Name on the Front

After watching the despicable excuse for television that was The Decision, and after seeing what an egomaniac Lebron has become, the events of the Heat-Bulls game on Wednesday really didn’t surprise me. With the Heat down 92-89 with 16 seconds left, Lebron chucked up a one dribble pull up three, with Luol Deng standing a few steps away with his hand up. The shot (if we can call it that) missed badly, not even touching the rim and barely grazing the backboard. The Bulls got the rebound, hit a few free throws, and the game was over.
Horrible shot, but frankly I’m not surprised. Lebron’s been making a lot of bad “decisions” lately.
16 seconds is a lifetime in basketball. There was no point of rushing a shot, especially not a semi contested pull up three. The Heat (and Lebron) could’ve moved the ball around for a few seconds and gotten a much more high percentage shot. Lebron was definitely not the best shooter on the floor for the Heat at the time, and he wasn’t even wide open.  
With 16 clicks left, even a quick two would’ve been fine, and this is why this was such a bad shot. Lebron had a clear step on Deng, and could’ve used that step to get the Heat a quick bucket. Announcers always fawn over Lebron’s quickness and strength, and they say he can’t be stopped once he gets into the lane with a head of steam. With this in mind, Lebron could’ve easily gotten inside (he already had a step on his defender) and finished, maybe even drawing a foul.
Looking back on the play, it seems like a no brainer. The Bulls were defending the three and Lebron could’ve easily gotten to the paint. The Bulls would need to then inbound and make two pressure packed free throws, and the Heat would still have enough time to run another set. Even if Lebron didn’t get an easy layup, he could’ve looked for an open teammate (if a Bulls defender had helped on him), which would’ve resulted in a much more high percentage shot. Lebron had a few different options here, and clearly, taking a contested three pointer was not the right basketball play.

But Lebron doesn’t care about the right basketball play; he cares about the right Lebron play. If Lebron had made that shot, it would’ve been heroic. The whole state of Florida would dub him the greatest player of all time, he would be inducted as ruler of Miami, and they’d build a golden statue in his liking outside the arena. OK, maybe I’m exaggerating a bit for a game played in late February, but you see the point I’m trying to make. Lebron wanted to take that shot because it was the right play for him, and it had the potential to lift his reputation. He didn’t take it because it was the right play for the Miami Heat.
Lebron could’ve gone for a quick two (as I said before), or he could’ve swung the ball around and looked for an open teammate. But he didn’t, because it wouldn’t have caused even close the same electricity as a game tying three ball.
That’s why I was almost expecting Lebron to take that shot, even though the moment he threw it up, it was clear it was the wrong play. Lebron wants to be remembered like MJ is remembered; he wants people to reminisce on his incredible shots and clutch buzzer beaters. What he needs to realize is that MJ wasn’t planning on hitting crazy game winning shots; they just happened. MJ only cared about winning, and that’s what Lebron needs to do also.
All Lebron needs to do is worry about winning a championship for the Miami Heat, and then the buzzer beaters will start to fall. As the great Herb Brooks once said, great moments are born from great opportunity; Lebron is an incredible player, but he needs to wait for that great opportunity, and seize it.  He needs to learn to make the play that will win his team the game, and not the play that might catapult him into further stardom. Whether that “right” play is a clutch three, a strong drive, or a great dish to an open teammate, it doesn’t matter. All that matters is the end result. Make the right basketball play, and the glory will ensue. Just ask Kobe Bryant.  

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Team Canada West, Part 2

As I wrote in my last post, I’m making two Canadian Olympic hockey teams, one from the East and one from the West. Team Canada East was made yesterday, so here comes Team Canada West.
Team Canada West
Center: Ryan Getzlaf. Big body presence (as Pierre McGuire would say) and incredible offensive talent from Saskatchewan.
Center: Jonathan Toews. Amazingly consistent crunch time player, and a solid two way center as well.
Center: Travis Zajac. Pretty slim pickings at center for Team West, so Zajac will have to do.
Center: Jarret Stoll: As I said, slim pickings.
Wing: Jarome Iginla. No brainer here, you can’t have Team Canada without Iggy.
Wing: Dany Heatley. He was born in Germany but moved to Calgary, which makes Team West very happy.
Wing: Patrick Marleau. Although he’s dropped off a bit this year, he’s been a consistent scorer most of his career, and gets to play with Dany Heatley/
Wing: Taylor Hall. Incredible young talent, give him a few years and he’ll be a stud. It was very hard to keep his buddy Jordan Eberle off the list
Wing: Milan Lucic: Classic “I hate playing against that guy, love having him on my team” type of guy. Big, nasty power forward, with soft hands and skill to boot.
Wing: Shane Doan. Great international player for Team Canada, and another gritty, skilled forward.
Defence: Shea Weber. All around incredible defenseman. Strong offensively, intimidating defensively, he’d be the key to Team West’s defence corps.
Defence: Duncan Keith. Not having the same Norris Trophy season as last year, but he’s nonetheless one of the best D men in the league, and is a great puck mover.
Defence: Brent Seabrook. Same story as Duncan Keith, but I’d still love to have him on my team
Defence: Mike Green. He’s had his problems defensively, but offensively, he’s probably the most gifted defenseman in the NHL.
Goalie: Carey Price. Having a fantastic bounce back season this year, and has had a lot of success in international competition in his career.
Goalie: Cam Ward. Another clutch goalie, who was born in Saskatchewan and completes Team West.
Just Missed the Cut: Jordan Eberle, Ryan Smyth, Clarke McCarthur, Evander Kane, Kris Versteeg, Jay Boumeester

Monday, February 21, 2011

Canadian Olympic Teams Part 1, Team East

After watching multiple Winter Olympic tribute shows in the last week, I decided an international hockey themed post was necessary. Whenever I think about Team Canada at any international competition, I always think to myself: Canada could put two teams out here, and they’d both have a legitimate shot at winning.
Since the whole “two teams for one country” thing would never be allowed in Olympic or even World Championship competition, I figured I’d take advantage of this blog to create my two headed Canadian Hockey monster.
It would be too hard to try to make two completely even teams so I’m not even going to try. Instead, I’m going to take the format used by the under 18 hockey championships, which divides Canada into regions (Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario and West) in an attempt to even out the playing field. My two Olympic Canadian teams will be divided along the Manitoba-Ontario border; Team Canada East and Team Canada West. Since a lot of research needs to be done, and the teams are pretty big, there will only be one team per post. I’ll also write a third post matching the two teams against each other, and seeing which side of the country really produces the best hockey players. So without further adieu, say hello to Team Canada East.
Team Canada East
Center: Sidney Crosby. A no-brainer for the first center spot, Crosby is the most dominant player in the NHL (in my mind) and hails from Nova Scotia
Center: Steven Stamkos. Possibly the second most dominant scorer behind Crosby, and an Ontario native.
Center: Mike Richards. Great two way player and perfect third line center
Center: Joe Thornton. Very tough choice for the last center spot, but I’ll give it to Jumbo Joe for his playmaking and consistency.
Wing: Eric Staal. I know he’s not technically a winger, but he played wing in the Olympics, and that’s good enough for this center heavy team.
Wing: Martin St Louis. First Quebecois on the list, incredibly gifted and gritty player, and you can’t have Stamkos without St Louis.
Wing: Rick Nash. Pure scoring power forward, impossible to take off the puck, and has a great international resume.
Wing: Corey Perry. I love this guy, he’s everything you could want in a hockey player, and luckily for Team East, he’s from Ontario.
Wing: Jeff Carter. Sniper and big body presence from Ontario. My hardest omission at the wing spot was definitely Claude Giroux, who's having a breakout season and is a strong two way player.
Defence: Chris Pronger. As much as I hate him, he’s an intimidating factor and huge asset on the blueline.
Defence: Drew Doughty. One of the most exciting defenseman in the NHL, and he played extremely well in last year’s Olympics.
Defence: Kris Letang. Great offensive defenseman having a fantastic year. He’s also from Montreal, which gives him bonus points.
Defence: Marc Staal. Solid young player who’s improving every game, and honestly, you need to have at least two Staals on your team at all times.
Goalies: Roberto Luongo. Backstopped Canada to the Gold in Vancouver, and comes from the greatest city on earth.
Goalie: Marc Andre Fleury. Also from La Belle Province, he’s extremely athletic and has big game experience.
Just Missed the cut: Claude Giroux,Brad Richards, Jordan Staal, Martin Brodeur, John Tavares, Patrice Bergeron, James Neal

Friday, February 18, 2011

Oilers Rebuilding Process Going as Planned

 While watching most of the Oilers-Habs game last night, I noticed a few things. I noticed that the Canadiens have one of the least potent offences in the NHL; I noticed that Brendan Nash isn’t ready for the NHL, and I noticed that David Desharnais definitely is. But the most important thing that came to mind wasn’t about the Habs or even about this specific game; it was about the Edmonton Oilers’ future.
While the Oilers may be bottom feeders right now, unlike some teams (Toronto Maple Leafs I’m looking at you), at least they know what they want, and are sticking to it. The Oilers know they are in rebuilding mode. They know they are not set to win right now, and they’re ok with this. They’ve got a solid core group of young guys and are continuing to build through the draft.
The most important aspect to a proper rebuilding project is patience. General Managers need to swallow their pride for a few years, take their licks, and build through the draft. When your team is bad, you can’t be signing old veterans to try to plug the holes. When a cut is deep enough, you don’t just stick a band-aid on it; you stitch it up and give it time to heal.
It’s the same thing with a hockey team. When trying to rebuild, there’s really no quick fix. Brian Burke learned that the hard way. The Toronto GM traded his 2010 and 2011 first round picks for Phil Kessel, in hopes of speeding up the Leafs’ rebuilding process. However, as one might expect, Kessel has been underwhelming, and the Leafs haven’t really improved.
Kessel’s lack of production isn’t even the worst part of this deal though; not by a long shot. Burke traded away his last two first round picks; the first one (2010) became a lottery pick, and was used to select Tyler Seguin. The Leafs missed out on picking a potential franchise player with the number two overall pick in the draft, at a time where they badly need to rebuild.
Things haven’t gotten much better in Year 2 of the Kessel experiment. The Leafs are once again out of a playoff spot and at the bottom of the standings. Normally, for a rebuilding team, this wouldn’t be such a big deal. The Leafs could tank the rest of the season, and hope for a lottery pick in the draft. There’s one problem though; they don’t have that pick anymore. Burke traded this year’s first round pick to Boston also, further stunting the Leafs’ rebuilding process.
Now compare this to the Oilers situation. Just like the Leafs, the Oilers are at the bottom of the standings and out of a playoff spot. Unlike the Leafs, however, they still have all their picks. The Oilers are set on building through the draft and their farm team, and are loaded with young, potential stars. It’s not just Taylor Hall and Jordan Eberle either. The Oilers are also loaded with talented young players like Linus Omark, Magnus Pjaarvi, Theo Peckham, Sam Gagner, and Andrew Cogliano, who are all under 23 years old. They also have a strong farm system with tons of depth.
The Oilers understand that the path back to greatness isn’t a short one. They know it will take some time, and they know that in the salary cap NHL, it is the only way to do things.
The Chicago Blackhawks were awful for a number of years, and were rewarded with high draft picks and prospects. Chicago stayed with this approach, and once their prospects and young guns grew up (Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Patrick Sharp, Duncan Keith, etc), they were ready to compete. The Blackhawks won the Cup last year, led by an incredibly young, strong nucleus of players.
The Lightning were also bad for a few years, and used their ineptitude to pick Steven Stamkos with the first overall pick in the 08’ entry draft. The Lightning are now building around Stamkos, and look poised to become a force in the NHL for years to come.
There are many other stories just like these, of teams being patient and taking the time to rebuild. You’d think with all these past experiences, teams would be crazy not to rebuild slowly. The Oilers are using this approach, and their prospects are definitely looking up. The Leafs, on the other hand, took the opposite approach. They tried to skip the whole rebuilding project, and are now learning that in the NHL, the quick fix is really no fix at all.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Shootouts

I have two big problems with shootouts.
First and foremost, get rid of it. It’s the worst way to end a game. After a hard fought 65 minute battle, the game comes down to a few shooters and each team’s goalie, and in my mind, that’s not right. If a game goes into overtime, this usually means it’s been a pretty even, well played game. The shootout doesn’t conclude this type of game properly.
Four on four overtime hockey is also extremely exciting to watch, and this is another reason why the NHL should scrap the shootout. Four on four is a great way to end a game, and it offers a much better, more fair alternative to the shootout.
I still haven’t reached my biggest reason for giving the shootout the boot. When playoff time comes around, the shootout disappears. The playoffs are really the only important part of the NHL season, so if the shootout isn’t good enough for the “second season”, then it shouldn’t be good enough for the first. The NHL regular season should stay with their current four on four system. They should just keep the overtime running until someone scores, and take away the shootout.
Now because of the NHL’s stubborn, useless attempt at growing hockey in the Sun Belt (a post for another day), the shootout will not disappear. The NHL will insist on keeping it in, because they know that for some American non-hockey fans, the shootout is the only thing they watch.
Keeping this in mind, here is my other problem with the shootout. If you’re going to keep the shootout in the game, why do you keep it at three players? As I said before, the NHL created the shootout for the excitement factor. You’d think that if it was so exciting, you’d want it to last as long as possible, right?
The five player shootout would not only add excitement, but it would also give the shootout a little more realism. A five player shootout gives a slightly better indication of which team is actually better, an attribute that the shootout sorely lacks. By adding a few players to the shootout, the results will be slightly more consistent with the actual abilities and depth of the teams, which can only be beneficial.
All sports are designed to allow the better team (on that night) to win. The current overtime and shootout format takes away this element, and that’s why it needs to be changed. Every sport makes mistakes (composite basketballs, anyone?), but the key is being able to admit to your mistake and make amends. Take away the shootout, Mr. Bettman, or risk losing your real fans for the regular season.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Packers SB Championship; The Forgotten Game

After the Packers won the Super Bowl, nearly every cliché, every player profile, and every comeback story has been talked about. We’ve heard about the Packers uphill climb from injuries and midseason struggle. We’ve heard about Charles Woodson’s tear filled halftime speech explaining to his teammates how much he “wants this”. Even the whole “the Super Bowl is coming back to "Titletown” line has been beaten to death.
We’ve heard the same repeated storylines so many times that you would think there would be nothing left to talk about. But if there was nothing left to talk about, then this wouldn’t be a very good article now would it?
There is still one big interesting factor in the Packers Super Bowl victory that everyone seems to be forgetting. When I look back at the Packers 2011 Super Bowl Championship, I’m not only going to remember Aaron Rodgers, Cheese heads and the Pittsburgh Steelers. I’m going to remember one incredible regular season game, between two bitter rivals, neither one of them named the Green Bay Packers.
I’m talking about December 19th; Giants vs. Eagles, The Miracle at the Meadowlands part two.
You all know what happened. The Giants were up 21 with eight minutes left in the game. The Eagles proceeded to score 28 unanswered points, highlighted by Desean Jackson’s 65 yard punt return off a horrible Matt Doge punt with no time remaining in the game. It was an unbelievable win for the Eagles, and a devastating loss for the Giants.
But it also affected another team, and this is what everybody tends to forget. The Packers and Giants both finished with 10-6 records at the end of the season, with the Packers getting in with the head to head tiebreaker. Had the Giants not performed one of the biggest choke jobs in the history of the NFL, the Packers wouldn’t have even had a chance to compete for the Lombardi Trophy.
(Pause for dramatic “ohhh I never realized that” moment)
Crazy, isn’t it? One insane eight minute stretch, in a game the Packers weren’t even involved in, changed their entire season. (On a side note, as a die-hard Giants fan, you don’t understand how hard this article is to write). The Giants played eight minutes of absolutely pathetic football (still haunts my dreams), and it helped the Packers win a Super Bowl Championship.
Now I’m not saying this is the only factor in the Pack’s championship season, because there are obviously tons of others. However, you can’t deny that those eight played minutes had a ridiculously huge effect on their season.
This is one of the many reasons I love sports, and one of the main reasons why I love football so much. Every little play matters. Every game, every drive, every play, and even every punt (are you kidding me Matt Dodge?!) matters. The slightest movement or slightest hesitation can make all the difference, not only in a game, but in an entire season.
This feeling, the feeling that at any moment, you could witness something amazing, is why I love sports.
If John Dodge boots that ball out of bounds, or if the Bears decided to go for the win in their final regular season game, the Packers might not have made the playoffs. If the Giants got one more first down in the fourth quarter, the Packers never would have had a chance to win a title. If the Eagles roll over and give up in that same fourth quarter, well, you get the picture.
Looking back on it, that one quarter had such a gigantic effect on the NFL landscape. Aaron Rodgers became a star, Charles Woodson got his first title, and the Packers became the NFL’s “next big thing”. In a way, the Giants and Eagles caused all of this. Had that game ended differently, who knows what would have happened? New heroes would be born, a new champion would be crowned, and new storylines would be made.
But it did happen. We’ll never know the answer to that “what if” question, and this is what makes professional sports so amazing. There’s no reset button.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Legacy > Longevity

With Peter Forsberg coming out of retirement to rejoin the Colorado Avalanche, there’s only one thing that comes to my mind.
Why, Peter, why?
Why are you doing this to yourself, to your body, and more importantly, to your legacy? After several stellar seasons in the prime of his career (including a Hart Trophy in 02’-03’), Forsberg has suffered through tons of nagging knee and foot injuries. From the 03’-04’ season on, Forsberg hasn’t played more than 60 games in a season. Although he had some success in the point column (65 points in 57 games while splitting time between the Flyers and Preds in 07’), anyone who watched Forsberg in his prime knew he wasn’t the same player in his last few seasons.
At his best, Forsberg was one of the most exciting players to watch. He had all the tools; he could skate, stick handle, and it was nearly impossible to take the puck off of him. Forsberg could both set up his teammates and snipe for himself, and he was the kind of player that you just loved to watch. However, he was never the same player during his “comeback seasons”, and this is what makes his most recent comeback attempt so sad.
It seems as though more and more, star athletes just can’t seem to retire. From Brett Favre’s teary eyed temporary retirements to Jerry Rice donning a Seahawks jersey in the twilight of his career (seriously, how wrong did that look?), players just can’t seem to hang ‘em up. It doesn’t just stop at football players though. Michael Jordan attempted a pretty sad comeback with the Wizards (lowering his career point average), and Sammy Sosa tried, without much success, to hit a few more bombs with the Orioles once his time was up.
In all these cases, the player’s comeback attempt did nothing for their career. In fact, it did exactly the opposite. I’m not even talking about stats or the physical toll it takes on their body. I’m talking about something that’s more important than that. I’m talking about something that, when their careers are finally over, is the most important thing an athlete has left.
Their legacy.
An athlete’s career can only last so long; hitters lose their bat speed, high-fliers lose their hops, and receivers lose a step. It’s inevitable. When it comes down to it, an athlete’s career is measured by the legacy he leaves on his sport, and by the thoughts and memories he evokes. This is why last ditch comebacks are a mistake. Athletes need to learn to leave at the right time, or risk tarnishing their legacy forever.
When we think of MJ, we remember him soaring above the rim, or hitting the game winner against the Jazz in 97’. We remember him with that last fist pump, the perfect end to a perfect career. Sadly, however, this wasn’t the end. He decided to try to make a comeback a few years later, and believe me when I say that we’d rather not remember the Wizard years.

When we remember Jerry Rice, we think of four great words. Touchdown, Montana to Rice. We don’t want to remember the fourth string wide receiver,  Seattle Seahawk Jerry Rice. We want to remember Rice for what he was in his prime and for most of his career; the best receiver in football.
Luckily, the careers of these two superstars were too memorable to be tarnished by a few sad, past their prime years. However, as everyone knows, not everyone is Michael Jordan or Jerry rice. In fact, nobody is. The brilliance of these two superstars, and others like them (think Mario Lemieux, Guy Lafleur) allow them to be unaffected by late career fallouts. Sadly though, not all players are this lucky.
Even the greatest athletes have expiration dates. And just like the moment you know that the milk has gone bad, athletes need to know when their time is up. If Peter Forsberg tries to come back again, he will only further tarnish what was an incredible career. The younger generation of hockey fans might remember him as a slow, injury prone, past his expiration date old timer; instead of as the incredible, elegant playmaker that he really was.
They say that the star that shines the brightest burns out the fastest, and this is what all athletes must remember. While it’s nice to think that you can play forever, the reality is that no one can. You let that star burn bright while you can, and when it burns out, it’s time to call it a career. Because while a couple of extra years might keep you in the news for a little while, a legacy lasts forever.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Stay Out of the Game

If you’ve been reading my blog, you’ll know that I have a lot of problems with different things in sports. If I were commissioner of all sports for a day, life would be sweet. The issue that I’m about to talk about is pretty small, and you may think it doesn’t need to be talked about, but it still infuriates me every time I see it.
Every NHL referee does it, and every time, I just want to scream. It happens at least a dozen times a game, on nearly every faceoff, in all three zones. There’s no reason for the refs to do it, but for some reason, it’s just accepted.
Seriously, drop the (expletive) puck!
I honestly don’t understand it. Why do NHL referees feel the need to fake drop the puck? What does it accomplish for the game? Faceoffs are all about timing, being quick on the stick, and having great hand eye coordination. Centers aren’t supposed to be standing at the dot, thinking to themselves, “well this ref usually fakes the first two drops, so I’ll make sure not to get kicked out”.
 As long as both centers have their sticks in the proper spots, the ref needs to just drop the puck. That’s all we ask from him. Just drop the puck, in the center of the dot, and let the game continue. Some refs, however, feel that they need to be part of the game. Who knows, maybe they think its fun to try to fake-out the players, and maybe they enjoy kicking guys out of the faceoff circle.
All I know is that I can’t stand it, and I think the players hate it too. Referees are hired to officiate the game, not take part in it, and that’s why they need to stop trying to get involved. Just drop the puck; the only people who should be playing games are the guys carrying the sticks.   

Friday, February 4, 2011

Steve Nash, Where Amazing Happens

Anyone who knows me knows I’m probably one of the biggest Steve Nash fans in the world. I try to catch his games on TV any time I can, I watch his highlight montages on YouTube, and I marvel at his game nonstop. I flat out love the guy. If you’re not a Steve Nash fan, then honestly, you should stop reading right about here.
I’m not going to go through an entire history of his career, but I’d like to mention his first time on center stage. In 1993, this skinny white Canadian kid led his 15th ranked Santa Clara team to the first ever upset of a number 2 seed in the NCAA tournament, stunning the Arizona Wildcats. This was the first time Nash shocked the world with his talent, and did something no one thought he could do. Little did we know, it was the first of many.
That upset in the 93’ tourney was just the beginning; Nash has been mesmerizing defences ever since. With no look passes and ridiculously long “how’d he do that” alley-oops, Nash became and still is one of the most exciting players in the NBA. Nash can bounce it, skip it, throw it behind his back, and dish equally well with his left hand, and this only adds to his “wow” factor. He’s also a career 43% from behind the arc, and is one of the greatest free throw shooters of all time (90.4 %).

But what sets Nash apart is not his stats, it is the excitement he brings, and more specifically, the manner in which he creates this excitement. As opposed to most superstars in the game today, Nash’s theatrics are all about getting his teammates involved. When Blake Griffin or Dwayne Wade makes an incredible play, it’s usually of the acrobatic, dunking, or circus shot variety. While there’s nothing wrong with these kinds of plays, they only involve the player performing it. Nash creates excitement by helping others, and in such a superstar driven league, I find that kind of refreshing.
Now don’t get the wrong idea, Nash’s unselfish play is not about getting on Sportscentre; it is always for the good of the team. When Nash arrived in Phoenix in 04’, the Suns were coming off a 29 win season. In his first season with the team, the Suns finished with 62 wins. Not a bad turnaround if you ask me.
Nash not only brought his own unselfish play to the Desert, but it was like it rubbed off on the rest of the team. Making the extra pass became the cool thing to do, and when a whole team is playing unselfishly, everyone benefits. Nash didn’t only bring his slick passing and clutch shooting to Phoenix, but he brought a new team attitude as well.
This ability to change the mindset of an entire team is what propels Nash over other PGs in my mind. While the highlights and the stats are one thing (Back to back MVP awards, anyone?), a true PG is supposed to make everyone around him better, and that is exactly what Nash does. Last year, in what was then his highest scoring year as a pro, Marcin Gortat averaged 4 points per game. In 20 games with the Suns this year, Gortat’s averaging 10.6. Gortat also served up my new favourite Nash quote, saying (in awesome Euro-English) that "As many passes as he gave me today I think I had so many passes the entire season a couple of years ago. It’s just a great feeling to play with him”.
Now isn’t that the epitome of Nash’s game? Everyone loves to play with him, and everyone has success playing with him. While yes, I know he doesn’t defend well and he’s never won a ring (which is completely the Sun’s front office’s fault, but that’s another story), that doesn’t change what I think about him. He does the unthinkable time and time again, and is also incredibly tough, as seen by his bloody nose in the playoffs against the Spurs. Nash is the reason I like to watch Suns games, and he’s also the reason players want to play for the Suns. Fans love him and players love playing with him, and really, what more can you possibly ask for?

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Rookie Mistakes

So many times while watching sports, I hear an announcer or a reporter say something that I just can’t stand. From pointless anecdotes to coaches’ quotes that say absolutely nothing, the world of live sports media can sometimes leave a lot to be desired. I’ve also found that hockey announcers are the main culprits for this kind of nonsense. However, out of all the many useless phrases and expressions used by hockey analysts and announcers, the one that gnaws at me the most, is the famous “rookie mistake”.
He made a rookie mistake. You have to live with those types of rookie mistakes. He’ll learn from those kinds of rookie mistakes.
I have a question for all those announcers who love to use the “rookie mistake” line. Is this the first game this rookie has ever played in his sport? If Taylor Hall throws the puck in front of his own net, is it because it’s his first year in the NHL? If P.K Subban tries to beat two forwards when he’s the last man back, is that ok because he’s a rookie? No, it’s not ok, and you know why. Because I guarantee this is not Subban or Hall’s first time lacing up a pair of skates, not by a long shot.
Taylor Hall and Jordan Eberle
By the time players have gotten to the NHL, they’ve been playing hockey for years. They’ve had countless coaches and training, and there’s no doubt in my mind that they’ve learned the basics of the game by now. If Jeff Skinner’s never learned not to blindly throw the puck across to the opposite point man, then there are big problems at the grass roots hockey level.
It gets even worse when announcers use the “rookie mistake” tag to players in the playoffs. If they’re in the playoffs, some of these rookies have already played a full season in the NHL. After 60-70 games, I don’t think a rookie is really a rookie anymore, regardless of what his player profile says.
However, even if they are true rookies, that shouldn’t excuse them from mindless plays. Even if the players are forgiven for their "rookie mistakes", the tag still needs to die. As I said before, these players have played enough hockey that they should know better. If Chris Pronger takes a dumb retaliation penalty, and Tyler Ennis does the same thing, it’s the same result. Two minutes in the penalty box; doesn’t matter if you’re a rookie or a 12 year vet.  

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

A Cheer-less Super Bowl

This year’s Super Bowl will have a different look to it. No, I’m not talking about the “everything’s bigger in Texas” sized screen at Cowboys Stadium; I’m talking about cheerleaders. The Steelers and Packers are two of only six NFL teams with no cheerleaders, and they will meet in the Super Bowl.
This will be the first Super Bowl in a very long time that’ll be cheerleader-less. The NFL has decided not to import cheerleader in for the big game, and I think this is a great decision.
The Packers and Steelers are two of the most historic and classy teams in the NFL. These teams have been around for decades, and all this time, they’ve never had cheerleaders. Now that they’re about to meet on football’s grandest stage, why should they be forced to change?
The NFL, it seems, is getting further and further away from the game of football itself. From tweets to touchdown dances, The NFL is becoming less about football, and more about the stuff in between. Because of this, as a real football fan, I find the idea of a pom-pom free Super Bowl pretty refreshing. As much as cheerleaders are nice to look at, they add to an already sizable list of distractions during the game. (I mean really, what’s the use of having an 80 yard video screen, anyways?)
Lately, it seems as though the Super Bowl is more of an event than an actual game. My mom usually tunes in right as the second quarter is ending so that she can watch the halftime show, and the Super Bowl commercials are usually talked about just as much as the game itself. Taking the cheerleaders off the field might be a small thing, but it’s still a step in the right direction when it comes to making the NFL’s championship game an actual game again.
The Super Bowl is possibly the greatest sporting event to attend in North America. There is nothing quite like it, and millions of people would give almost anything to be there. If the presence of cheerleaders will really make or break your decision, then honestly, you don’t deserve to be in attendance.