Mile High

I really like this Denver team and I’m reiterating my thoughts that they will take down the Lakers.

They are playing great team basketball. They’re making the extra pass and getting easy buckets. Their frontline is intimidating and can finish (although Martin needs to crush some of those layins and remove all doubt that the ball is going through the hoop). They can score in crazy bunches. I just like what I’m seeing.

I also love the way that Chauncey Billups plays. Tom Friend had a cool, lengthy feature the other day kind of explaining why Billups is who he is. I enjoyed it immensely.

There really is no reason not to like the guy, especially since he is so clearly in command of this team and can dress down even the seemingly undressdownable Kenyon Martin. For instance, at the end of the first half Billups waved away Nene as he attempted to set a screen and pointed at Martin. Martin came over, but didn’t do so with much urgency, so Billups took it to the hole, got fouled, and made the shot, he walked toward Martin pointed, and said, “I wanted YOU in the pick and roll, dog.” Martin did not argue, but instead repeated “My bad” several times. Martin was wrong. Billups was right. Martin knew it. It’s almost like he’s a dad out there. He has this way about him where he almost nonverbally says, “It’s not that I’m mad, I’m just disappointed.” Anyway, he’s such a smart offensive player and it’s really clear why his teammates love playing with him.

However, I do not like the way that he played defense on Jason Kidd. Look, we all know Kidd is past his prime, certainly defensively, but he’s still crafty and quick with the ball in his hands, as evidenced by the several occasions where he actually And1 Mixtaped Billups on defense and drove straight to the hole, except he never finished, but that’s a different matter. Another thing is that he, and several Dallas players (Howard, Terry, sometimes Dirk) were left WIDE open on threes. Denver plays very good defense in the post and on drives to the basket, but for some reason they do a really poor job closing out on three-point shooters, which is strange. It’s one of the easier things to do because while it takes effort, the effort required is minimal. They can’t continually do that against a good shooting team and expect to survive (although they just did that, didn’t they? So what am I talking about?)

I’m a converted Melo believer. I’ve wanted to like the guy for a few years now and he’s convinced me that he’s worthy. He’s such an explosive offensive force and is actually showing quite a bit of defensive prowess, as evidenced by his strong post defense against Dirk. Granted, Dirk is not a post player, but Melo did not give any ground and did not bite on Dirk’s many, many headfakes. Since he’s such a solidly built guy with quickness and speed, so it makes sense that he should be a good defender. Actually, the only thing holding him back is effort. He’ll get there though. But his real value, obviously, is his offense. He’s such a strong player going to the hole, his straight-up-and down jumper looks great and when he’s on, it’s like his shot finds the bottom of the net quicker than most. It’s kind of like when people talk about how a ball sounds different when it comes off Josh Hamilton’s bat. Melo’s swishes are just prettier than most.

A few other random thoughts:

• I hated PJ Carlesimmo as the coach for the Sonics, but I must admit, he’s a good color analyst. The guy knows what he’s talking about and he doesn’t come across as a jerk that I’d perceived to be. He doesn’t belabor points, he doesn’t seem to have any grudges, he doesn’t over-talk, and he’s been around the league for so long he knows all of the players really well. What can I say? I like the guy.
• Another guy that I like is Brandon Bass. He’s a tough, effort guy with some skills, a decently reliable jumper, and doesn’t seem to be a quitter. He showed a ton of heart down the stretch when the game looked like it was out of hand. Anyway, I’ll say this, even though he’s only 6’7 or 6’8 I’d much rather have him at $2-3M per year (he’s an unrestricted free agent and made under $830K this year) than Erick Dampier at $11M per year through the 2011 season, but that’s just me. But I hammered this point home earlier.
  I don’t like the Pepsi Center. It looks fine on TV and I’m sure it’s a nice place to watch a game, but man, it seats over 19K, but the acoustics make it sound like there are far less people in there. It’s like the noise just evaporates. I felt the same way about Dallas’s American Airlines Center (which seats over 20K). Maybe they need to lower the ceilings or something, but it just sounds dead in those arenas.
• Just how disgusting is that Dominos Pasta Bread Bowl? I thought that we had turned into a very carb-conscious society, so how did this make it through testing? What’s next, a baked potato bread bowl stuffed with fettuccini alfredo and topped with croutons with a side of chips? I’m curious to see how these things sell. My guess? Very well.
• I am thoroughly enjoying the "Old School" T-Mobile commercial with Barkley, Magic, and Dr. J. I especially enjoy the poster and video game case depicting a caricature of Barkley playing hoop in red Chuck Taylors and a hospital gown with an IV in his arm. Nice subtle move by the T-Mobile folks. The three of them look legitimately sad about wearing the motion capture outfits. Also, they don’t overact, but instead play it straight up, and it’s legitimately funny. Nice job, fellas.
• I seriously doubt that I’ll be “Meeting the Browns.”

Post Ty

As fans of UW Football, we were all hoping that Willingham wasn’t as much of an ass as he seemed to be. He came to UW not a as a savior really, but rather a guy that the administration thought would bring accountability, hard work, and honor back to the program. When he was hired, I didn’t know too much about him except that it looked like he was forced out of Notre Dame unfairly. But then, I don’t care for Notre Dame, and I figured that anything that they did was nefarious in a secret society kind of way.

The only opinion that I really had about Willingham was that he was boring. I recall bits and pieces of his opening press conference at Notre Dame when he was clearly kissing up to the administration by talking about ending practice at a time so that his players could attend church service at “Twelve Noon.” I remember thinking three things: (1) “who says twelve noon?” (2) “Wow, I didn’t know that Notre Dame was so religious,” and (3) “Willingham sounds really, really, really boring.”

He had a great first season with the Irish going 10-3 but got throttled 28-6 by NC State in the Gator Bowl. His next two seasons were massive disappointments at 5-7 and 6-5 which featured several blowout losses (if that wasn’t a harbinger for UW, then I don’t know what was).

He had an OK record at Notre Dame and he may have been fired a little too quickly, but looking back, is that really the case? Wouldn’t he have just dug Notre Dame into a deeper hole? We can only wish that he’d stayed there longer because while Notre Dame thinks that it is better than everyone else, they can’t hold the jocks of non-BCS schools like Boise State, Utah, BYU, and even Fresno State, but that’s another rant for another day. The point is Notre Dame fired him and he ended up at UW where he stood on a program that was mired in a tar pit and did nothing to prevent it from sinking into its murky depths, but instead stood with his arms folded, hand on his chin, wearing his sunglasses and headset.

He had many problems, but here are a few that stood out:

He was never upfront with the media.
Because of this, no one knew exactly what was going on. Not the media, not the fans. Everyone was left to try and interpret his cryptic comments in search of real meaning. In response to direct questions (e.g. “What went wrong with the running game today, why did you keep running the ball up the middle with Chris Polk when he was gaining a yard at best?”), he would “answer” with nonspecific pabulum, such as (and I’m paraphrasing here): “You want to win in the game of football, oookaaay, and when you don’t win, it’s frustrating, but we are all dedicated to winning the game of football.”

Thanks, Ty. So what does that even mean? There is probably one reason why coaches do this and it’s because they abhor the media. But there are different motivations for different coaches. Let’s take two extreme examples: Bill Belichick and Tyrone Willingham.

Belichick pulls the “I hate talking to you people and will say as little as possible” stunt all of the time, but it’s different with him because he wins. He does not want to talk to anyone about his team because it could give a competitive advantage to the opposition (I guess). So he’s curt and boring and he does this so he can get the hell away from the media as soon as possible.

Willingham pulls the same stunt, but has a very different motivation, which is: he has no idea what to say because he doesn’t know what he was doing. Both are strategic moves for the coaches. They want to hold things close to the vest. Belichick does it to protect his knowledge and to protect his team. Willingham does it to hide his lack of knowledge and to blame his team. They behave in much the same manner, but have very different motivations.

A good friend of mine has an uncle who played football professionally and subscribes to this theory about Willingham. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Actually, the more everything makes sense about his entire reign at UW. He wanted to portray a certain image and wanted people to think that he was: professional, stoic, measured, reserved, respected, disciplined, and intellectual. He may actually have been one or two of these things, but these character traits really were a mask. As the Fugees once said, “Yeah everybody wears a mask but how long will it last?” Willingham acted the way that he did with the media, with former players, with fans, and with boosters because under his professional veneer was a shocking abundance of ignorance. He never had any answers so the best way to deal with that is to completely make it uncomfortable for anyone to speak with him. Conversations with people were always short because people got tired of talking to him. So his plan worked. He never had to really explain himself. Now the closed practice thing makes sense, because he didn’t want anyone to know that all he did was walk around practice for a few hours looking like a general (we can only surmise) when really all he was doing was waiting for practice to end so he could go home. I’m sure it seemed like he was just giving his position coaches and coordinators the freedom to coach, but really he couldn’t have helped them in any way because, again, he did not know what he was doing. If he opened practices, then people who actually know what to look for in a coach would know that he was a fraud and he might have been called out even sooner.

We probably never heard about this because his assistant coaches would never sell him out while they worked for him because, hey, he game them their job and loyalty goes a long way. If they badmouthed Willingham, then they’d be labeled backstabbers. If that’s the case, then how do they get hired by the next guy? It’s in their best interest to keep their mouths shut.

For the players, what do they really know? If they didn’t transfer into the program, then Willingham would have been their only exposure to a college head coach on a daily basis. So through no fault of their own, they’re unaware of how a successful coach runs his program.

You have to admit, it makes sense.

He sold out his players.
Several times during Willingham’s tenure he would lead his players to the slaughter. A comment like “We didn’t execute” is code for “Hey, this isn’t my fault, my players suck and didn't do what I told them to do.” I’m a firm believer that coaches should never baby their players and should hold them accountable for things that they do wrong. But a good coach wouldn’t air out his players in public, but rather would kick their ass behind closed doors. I never heard him do anything like that, instead, he employed classic passive-aggressive behavior and essentially talked behind their backs, but in broad daylight, if that makes any sense. Perhaps he was just “sending a message” but the way he acted, frankly, was cowardly. Especially when he, as head coach, is to blame.

Also, when players were hurt or injured, he’d always play it down. Perhaps he was doing this because he didn’t want his players to use injuries as an excuse for bad play, but it still made those players look like fools if they were playing poorly. Instead of them being hobbled and unable to make a play because of a physical malady of some sort, Willingham would trot out his: “We just didn’t execute in the football game” line.

Another thing, I’m not 100% sure he knew the names of all of his players or anyone else in college football. He’d constantly refer to “our running back” or “the young man” or “number X” when referring to a specific player. I could never figure out what sort of mind game he was playing with all of us. Is it like not mentioning a competitor in a commercial and instead calling it “another leading brand?” I suppose that would make sense if he was talking about opposing players, by not wanting to give them credit or something, but he’d often do it with his own players. Was he trying to maintain some sort of weird distance with players in his program? I’m now convinced that there is a more simple explanation. He just didn’t know their names.

Anyway, now he’s gone and I couldn’t be happier, but on his way out he managed to tank swimming right along with the football team. The funds from his buyout would have more than made up for the cost to run the swim team, at least for the next year, who knows what would have happened after that. Willingham could mend a lot of fences if he donated some cash back to the school to save swimming, but he’s probably too professional, stoic, measured, reserved, respected, disciplined, and intellectual to do something like that.

I am overjoyed with the future prospects of this program under Sarkisian though. He’s everything Willingham is not. Personality is one thing and Sarkisian’s got truckloads of it, which is great, but his willingness to engage the media and fans and speak about his team shows me that he is confident and competent in addition to being fun to listen to. If he fails it won’t be because of lack of effort or knowledge, it will be because this program has fallen to such depths that it cannot be revived in five years or less. I’m attempting to temper my enthusiasm, but it’s difficult to do so when reading things about him and the recruiting efforts that he and his staff are taking. He also seems a lot more invested in the program, inventive in his approach to the game, and, to be honest, more trustworthy, than Willingham.

It would be glorious if he could lead them to a bowl game this year, but even the most ardent supporters don’t believe that will happen and are giving him time to implement his scheme, get his players in here, and change the losing attitude.

While I’ve known the schedule for quite some time, I haven’t done the game-by-game thing, so let’s do it now, just for fun. And in case you didn’t know, last year I picked this team to go 7-5. Unbelievable.

2009 Football schedule

• Sat., Sept. 5 LSU – loss (LSU’s purple and gold program is so far ahead of UW’s it’s laughable. The offense is no great shakes, but LSU’s defense will cause all kinds of problems. The speed on the field will be shockingly one-sided.)
• Sat., Sept. 12 Idaho – win (I’m happy to see them back on the schedule, welcome, Vandals.)
• Sat., Sept. 19 USC – loss (but I feel kind of good about this game, the team lost a lot on defense and has a new QB even though their skill players are still great)
• Sat., Sept. 26 at Stanford – win (I’m not confident in this pick, but Stanford has lost a lot and are engulfed in a QB controversy. They also may lose their highly productive RB, Toby Gerhart, to baseball).
• Sat., Oct. 3 at Notre Dame – loss (they are not that impressive, but they weren’t impressive last year and for all intents and purposes held UW under 100 yards of offense last year. Of course that was with Ronnie Fouch running the show…)
• Sat., Oct. 10 Arizona – win (No more Willie “Light Up UW” Tuitama. That’s a good thing.)
• Sat., Oct. 17 at Arizona State – win (They’ve lost a ton of players, including their QB, and were highly overrated last year anyway. I don’t like this team at all).
• Sat., Oct. 24 Oregon – loss (Despite losing quite a few quality starters, they are still far superior than UW at this point).
• Sat., Nov. 7 at UCLA – win (They’ve got huge QB problems, don’t have a stocked cupboard, and Neuheisel doesn’t have them going yet).
• Sat., Nov. 14 at Oregon State – loss (this is a very good team that has a good, experienced QB and explosive playmakers. This game could get out of hand.)
• Sat., Nov. 28 Washington State – win (they were dreadful last year and nothing tells me that they’ll be anything but atrocious next year. They have not solved their QB questions and are lacking across the board and lost Brandon Gibson).
• Sat., Dec. 5 California – loss (another very good team that may just throttle UW).
  
  Final Tally: 6- 6

Look what I just did. I just made fun of myself for predicting that UW would go 7-5 in 2008 and now I’ve made them bowl eligible in Sarkisian’s first year? What’s wrong with me? I’m way too cynical to be such an optimist. But going through this game-by-game exercise you have to admit that it’s possible, right? Ok, maybe I’m being a little too bullish on their chances against the Arizonas and Stanford…nevertheless I’ve now convinced myself that 4-8 would be a disappointment, 5-7 is the most realistic, and 6-6 is attainable.

That’s not too much to ask, right? Right!?

Please let me be right.

I love college football and I need UW to be relevant again because I can’t, in good conscience, leap into the arms of another program next year without feeling dirty. Being just a little too interested in how Georgia is going to do with the loss of Knowshon Moreno and Matthew Stafford just won’t sit well with me.

The Cohen Brothers

I saw Burn After Reading this weekend and while I heard that the movie wasn’t very good, I wasn’t prepared for 96 minutes that felt like 180 minutes. This was dreck. My knee-jerk reaction was something like, “How can the Cohen brothers, the geniuses behind Fargo, The Big Lebowski, and O Brother, Where Art Thou give me something as crappy as Burn After Reading?” As an aside, you’ll notice that I did not include Raising Arizona in the mix of genius-level movies. The reason is simple. I did not like that movie. I realize that many people do and are baffled when I tell them that Raising Arizona simply doesn’t do it for me. I’m sorry. I just don’t like it.

Back to the Cohen brothers, I'm not sure why I was surprised that Burn After Reading was so bad because this isn’t the first time that they’ve lobbed a bag of vomit at me. Granted, I haven’t seen all of their movies, but I have seen several. Here’s the list and my comments next to each:

1. Blood Simple. (1984) – didn’t see it.
2. Crimewave (1985) – didn’t see it.
3. Raising Arizona (1987) – didn’t like it.
4. Miller's Crossing (1990) – interesting Irish gangster movie. I didn’t see it when it was new, but saw it probably about 10 years ago. I remember liking it, but not loving it by any stretch.
5. Barton Fink (1991) – this was an extremely weird movie filled with caricatures and themes, I wasn’t into it.
6. The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) – absolutely horrible. Tim Robbins was lame in this movie and I wanted to punt Jennifer Jason Lee out of a skyscraper’s window as soon as she appeared on screen. I hated this movie so very much.
7. Fargo (1996) – One of my favorite movies of all time. I love the story. I love the characters. To this day I still quote the movie (“You’re such a super lady!”) and I will always watch it if it’s on TV. It’s a nearly perfect movie.
8. The Big Lebowski (1998) – Quite possibly my favorite comedy of all time. Walter’s anger is fantastic. The Dude is flawless, and every character is wonderfully played (although I could have done without Julianne Moore to be honest). Gets high marks for possibly being more quotable for me than Fargo is. Also, for how mellow The Dude is, I love how he gets frustrated with Knox Harrington, the video artist. As a bonus, we named one of our intramural hoops teams in law school “Autobahn.”
9. O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) – This movie was great but does not reach Fargo or Lewbowski territory. However, it’s beautifully shot. The artistry is amazing and Clooney is very good. Also, the music is fantastic and the sirens scene is super, duper cool.
10. The Man Who Wasn't There (2001) – I didn’t see any reason to watch this one.
11. Intolerable Cruelty (2003) – massively disappointing. So much overacting and wildly uninteresting.
12. The Ladykillers (2004) – sometimes just having an accent isn’t funny enough, Tom Hanks. More overacting here. Simply a stupid movie. Although I did like how the guy’s face in the painting kept changing. That was kind of funny.
13. No Country for Old Men (2007) – They did a great job with this one. The movie stayed very true to the book and the casting was great. I enjoyed this a great deal.
14. Burn After Reading (2008) – one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. I knew it would be terrible minutes into it because of Frances McDormand’s scene in the clinic. The jokes weren’t funny, the accents weren’t funny, she wasn’t funny (and she's typically great). It sucked. I’m a Brad Pitt fan and he brought absolutely nothing to the table. It’s just like they decided to make Brad Pitt play a kind of dorky guy and that would be enough to make it good. It wasn’t. Same with Clooney, I love the dude, but his character was unappealing, unlikeable, and far from funny. Whatever. I was pissed that I sat through this.
15. Hail Caesar (2009) (pre-production) - I know nothing about this.
16. A Serious Man (2009) (post-production) – or this.

So, of the 11 movies that these guys have made, I’ve loved three, liked one, was lukewarm on one, and hated six.

None of this means anything except that I (or you) should not blindly think that a Cohen brothers movie will be good.

It’s just strange that guys this talented who put out such great stuff can then release garbage like Burn After Reading and not feel bad about it. Perhaps they do and are just cashing checks, which is something that I completely understand, but that doesn’t make it right.

Artest and Rethinking the Playoffs

I love the way that Ron Artest plays defense and it’s weird that he’s such a big guy who can move as fluidly as he can. I do not like his offensive game, such as it is, because he has no regard for what a good shot is. If he did, he wouldn’t launch contested threes or force simply horrible shots with time left on the shot clock and when he’s got other players on his team capable of actually hitting shots (really, anyone else on the team). But I love this anecdote that he told the other day when asked about rough play in the Houston, L.A. series:

In brushing off the idea that the Rockets-Lakers series had
gotten uncomfortably rough, Ron Artest even related a story about a playground
game that ended when someone broke a leg off a table and stabbed a
guy.

“It went right through his heart and he died right on the
court,” Artest said. “So I’m accustomed to playing basketball really
rough.”

It turns out the story is true – although it happened at a
YMCA, the stabbing was in the back and Artest was only 12 at the time, so he
probably wasn’t in the game. The man who died, Lloyd Newton, was from Artest’s
hometown of Queens.

Here’s the story of the stabbing.

When I was watching the game where he got tossed for rushing Kobe and telling him that he was hitting the wrong person, I kept thinking, “I wonder if Ron is going to come back onto the court, put a 38 to Kobe’s temple while he’s shooting a free throw, and squeeze.” Admitedly, it’s highly unlikely that he’d do that or even attempt to do that, but not completely out of the realm of possibility, afterall, some dude stabbed Monica Seles during a tennis match.

Also, given what has transpired the last few days, I clearly need to rethink my prediction on the Lakers. If they make it out of this round against Houston, and I still think that they will. How in the world are they going to tussle against Denver? That team is playing great basketball and has highly effective role players (Nene, Birdman, Blake Griffin 1.0, Dahntay Jones) to go along with Melo, Chauncey, and the extraordinarily knuckleheaded but equally extraordinarily talented J.R. Smith. They’re playing good defense and will have several days to rest after possibly sweeping Dallas, while L.A. is at 2-2 with Houston. They way that they’re playing right now makes them honest-to-goodness title contenders.

Cleveland looks like a goddamn unstoppable train right now (well, at least LeBron does, both literally and figuratively) but a tough Denver team would by no means be an easy out. If given the option, I’d bet that Cleveland would rather face L.A. than Denver because L.A. does not have anywhere near the thuggish ruggish persona that Denver is strutting right now, and it doesn’t look like an act. L.A. for as talented as they are, still lack any sort of pimp slap mentality. I love Lamar Odom, but I wouldn’t fear him. Kenyon Martin on the other hand would make me soil myself and I’d also be deathly afraid to catch anything from Birdman (e.g. avian flu or just the clap). Plus, add the unreal hostile environment that Kobe will face in Denver and it’s going to be a damn tough series for L.A. if they get there. By the way, that Kobe-the-Rapist thing could go one of two ways. One: he’ll feed off of the negative energy and shut the crowd up by scoring at will and defending like a mother bear. Two: he’ll force everything in order to shut the crowd up but completely shoot his team out of the game while getting pissed at his team at the same time. I’d bet we get to see both sides with scenario two happening first, then scenario one happening at least once.

While I’m not an L.A. fan by any stretch I’d much rather see them face Denver than Houston, so here’s hoping that happens.

Renardo Sidney

It’s nice to see teams use their heads every once and awhile. Renardo Sidney is a 6’10 hihg school senior forward from LA who recently had his scholarship offer from USC revoked after UCLA did the same. I read about him a few months ago in The New York Times Play Magazine and the singular thing that stuck out about him was that at age 18, he sucks his thumb and carries a woobie with him. Here’s the quote:

“I’ve been sucking my thumb since I was a kid,” he says. “Sometimes, I do it
just to do it. Like, when I’m mad.” He also travels with a lucky blanket. His
father — Renardo the elder — is seated across the table. He chuckles. “It’s a
sheet,” he clarifies.

I'm glad we cleared that up. Evidently he’s, quite literally, a Baby Huey type. He’s one of those kids who has a tremendous amount of baby fat on him to the extent that his face is almost completely round. Scouting reports and hyperbolic articles say that he has natural ability on the court, but reading deeper, the kid seemed to have a gigantic attitude problem and he’s not helped out by what seems to be an overly meddling dad who only enables his bad-attitude kid.

I had my biases against him and then I saw him play in the McDonald’s All-America game and my biases were cemented. I hated this kid’s game. He managed to look lazy in an all-star game, when everyone plays lazily. I didn’t understand why college coach would want him on their team, and now it appears that at least two, UCLA’s Ben Howland and USC’s Tim Floyd, do not. Their decisions make perfect sense to me. I can’t imagine how frustrating it would be to have a 6’10 270 kid on your team who will very likely frustrate you every minute of the day he’s on the court because he has the size and natural ability to be good but plays like a lazy, fat, spoiled, entitled, washed-up YMCA guy

DraftExpress.com had some interesting insight on the kid the other day calling him “Antoine Walker in the later stages of his career.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement. There is no player in the history of the NBA whose game I disliked more than Walker. His insistence of launching 3s to the complete detriment of his team was nauseating. His shimmy shake thing he did was worse. I hated his game in the early stages of his career, but he got much worse over time. The point is Sidney is like that now. At 19. No NBA team should touch him. He’s not worth the roster spot. He will not change his stripes, and if he does, it won’t be for five years or so, in other words, too far down the line for any GM or coach who lobbied to get him to reap the rewards because they will be fired by then. Teams should run away and not look back.

I don’t like hating on kids, but I love hoops, and this guy’s game is utterly detestable. I thought that having LeBron James being the gold standard in basketball these days that the trend would be kids would try and emulate his unselfish, all-around game. Maybe that is happening to some extent, but until some sycophantic members of the media stop deifying dudes like Sidney the LeBronization of the game is not complete.

Leftover NBA Thoughts

A few lingering thoughts from the extraordinarily entertaining Bulls / Celtics series:

Joakim Noah
People dislike this man and even derisively refer to him as a woman, I guess because he’s got long hair and wears it in a ponytail.

He is brash, he is exuberant, he has possibly one of the ugliest looking shots I’ve ever seen, he has the aforementioned ponytail, and he screams a lot, much to the annoyance of nearly everyone around him, probably even his teammates. If I rooted for the guy, I’d cringe every time he let out a primal scream after a putback dunk or a block. I’d want him to put a lid on it and just play, but that’s not him, and it’s frustrating and annoying. It is definitely easy to hate him.

But here’s why I don’t. He’s a great team player and he makes his team better. He is never going to be an elite or even functional scoring option on a good team because he has no post moves to speak of and he certainly cannot hit a jumper (from any distance) with any degree of consistency. But as a result, he does not do these things because he is very aware of his limitations, which makes him a smart player. He knows his role as a defensive role player, agitator, rebounder, and garbage point collector. In addition to being a savvy player, he also has the benefit of being 6’11, possessing boundless energy, and surprising quickness and agility, all of which makes him very effective. He’s a perfect player for this young Bulls team because they have several other scoring threats so his scoring is not necessary. In fact, if he had the ability to score, it may create discord amongst the team because he would think he needs more shots. He may develop offensively over time, but because he’s so unselfish now, their present team is better for it.

I’m not a fan of his, because I do not like the screaming, but I do appreciate his value and would be pleased to have him on my team, if I had one to root for, and I don’t.

Rajon Rondo
He’s got some interesting qualities. Every time I see him I think of the video game Street Fighter II because he reminds me of Dhalsim, the Indian dude with the crazy long arms and legs. Is Rondo just straight up African American or is there something else going on there? My friend, Chris, thinks that he looks like a good-looking Alien, not an ugly one like Sam Cassel. He’s on to something.

My wife thinks that his face is very feminine, which is also true and made me think of Jaye Davidson, the guy who played the chick in The Crying Game and the sun god Ra in Stargate that could have been super cool but instead was just kind of cool (I blame James Spader). He shares a lot of similarities with that androgynous person. However, I'm not saying that Rondo could slip on a dress and pass for an attractive female. He’s end up looking like ET when Drew Barrymore dolled him up. I find that I’m digging myself a hole here and I don’t mean to disparage Rondo’s looks, but he just looks a lot different than a lot of other brothers out there.

Nevertheless, he’s a wonderful point guard player who I’ve decided is better than Deron Williams right now even if Williams is much, much, much more of a threat with his jumper than Rondo is with his.

That’s not to say that I don’t love Williams’s game; I do, but Rondo looks like he has a sort of indestructibility, defensive prowess, and cocky, bad-assness to him, sort of like GP did back in the day. Taken a step further, GP had a compound-fracture level broken jumper when he started out in the league, just as Rondo does. Jumpers, like bones, can be mended over time (just look at Tony Parker). Attitude and drive are harder, if not impossible, to acquire. Rondo has these qualities already.

Just for fun, here is my top five list of young (meaning under 25) PGs in the league in descending order of my admiration:

1. Chris Paul, age 24 (May 6, 1985) – despite a horrid performance by his team in the playoffs he is the best. He controls every single thing on the floor. His team was hurt and overmatched against a hungry, tougher team on a mission, who look to be on their way to the conference finals by the way. We’ll see what happens next year and if Byron Scott will be back. There has got to be a bunch of coaches who are more qualified than Scott, of course, if there is a buyout involved, then there are issues here because the ownership is notoriously cheap. I love Paul’s game and he remains at the top of the list for me.
2. Derrick Rose, age 20 (October 4, 1988) – he’s got all of the ability in the world to be the best and he’s only 20. Like Rondo, his jumper is suspect, but it’s not broke. He just needs to spend a ton of time this offseason working on it. It will come. One nitpicky thing about him that will likely dissipate with age and experience is his eagerness to defer. As good of a ball handler he is, I’d prefer him to dominate the ball more than he does. I also understand that he’s got Ben Gordon on his team who lives to shoot and does so voluminously, and will probably bitch if he doesn’t get his looks. My point is, too often he’ll bring the ball up the court and pass it to Gordon or someone else and then disappear for the remainder of the possession. Look, I know that point guards are supposed to pass, but the pass that I just described doesn’t doing anything, except allow Gordon to dribble around and launch up a shot. I also understand that this may be what Vinny calls in from the sideline, whatever the reason, it shouldn’t happen with the frequency that we see it. Taking the ball out of Rose’s hands does nothing but benefit the defense. It lets them off of the hook. He should penetrate at least 70% of the time because by doing so he’ll get to the rim or he’ll find an open guy. Every time. In a few years, we’ll see this, he is only a rookie and a very young one at that. The bottom line is this: He’s great right now and will only get better.
3. Rajon Rondo, age 23 (February 22, 1986) – he’s in the three spot solely based on what I’ve seen out of him during these playoffs. He’s been nothing short of fantastic, but his lack of any sort of offensive perimeter game limits him presently.
4. Deron Williams, age 24 (June 26, 1984) – I’d love to have him on any team I root for. He’s got great size and strength and plays good defense. It’s just that his top-end is below what the other three have to offer.
5. Russell Westbrook, age 20 (November 12, 1988) – I can only go on what I’ve read about him and what I saw of him at UCLA since I haven’t seen a single game of his. He was an explosive guy and a terrific defender at UCLA and it seems as though that has carried over to the NBA. As an aside, I just looked at their roster and Shaun Livingston is on their team. That poor dude. He was on his way to becoming a very good point guard in the league if he didn’t suffer that dry-heave inducing leg injury (link). That, and looking exactly like Wallace, doomed him. (images). Upon further review, his birthday isn’t helping matters either… September 11, 1985. On the bright side, he’s got two years to be a member of this exclusive list of mine, so there’s that. But really, is Livingston capable of making a comeback? And if so, will the Sonics have the skinniest 1 and 3 east of Serbia? Neither Durant nor Livingston was able to press 185 off of their chests at the NBA Pre-Draft Combine. I’m pulling for the guy to make it back simply because, in limited time, he looked like he had a great feel for the game. He also seemed like a good dude and the league could always use more legit PGs who can see the floor and make plays. Here’s hoping that he continues to round back into shape and not explode on impact.

Guys that didn’t make my list but whom I’ve heard good things about and will try to watch them even though it’s impossible because they are never on TV:

1. DJ Augsustin, age 21 (November 10, 1987) – I remember him at Texas, and am surprised that he’s been able to do what he has in the NBA, of course he plays in Charlotte (for now) and that team will never be relevant because it’s very likely that their ownership and management don’t know what they’re doing. Plus, I hate the sanctimonious Larry Brown
2. O.J. Mayo, age 21 (November 5, 1987) – I’m told that he’s a point guard. I don’t know how that is the case. When he was at USC he didn’t really play the point, but he did have the ball a lot. He’s also got Mike Conley on the team, whose strength is not shooting. If I cared about Memphis in the least I’d put more thought into this. Mayo just seems like he fits the trendy combo guard label than point guard, but does that really matter? All of those combo guards can all thank Chauncey for this, by the way.

Guys that I’m interested in, but probably only because they are from the Seattle area and don’t have the special gifts that the top five have but I’m going to mention them anyway because I am intrigued by them and they are still young and this is my site and I’ll do what I want.

1. Aaron Brooks, age 24 (January 14, 1985) – He’s incredibly quick, but small, and has a great jumper. I see no reason why he shouldn’t be Jason Terry for years to come (yes, I made that reference because they both are from the same high school in Seattle, but you have to admit, it works).
2. Rodney Stuckey, age 23 (April 21, 1986) – Not overly impressive, but he’ll get better. He’s physically gifted and has great size. I’m very intrigued by his potential. People ought to settle down with the Dwyane Wade comparisons. Just because he resembles him physically doesn’t mean he’s the same player. He has attributes, but Wade is super duper special. Stuckey can also thank Chauncey (for the combo guard thing and also for the leaving Detroit thing).
   
   

The Derby

I watched the ponies run this weekend with some good friends over beers and pizza. Someone asked this hypothetical question: “Would you rather go to the Kentucky Derby or the Indy 500?” Since none of us are fans of racing, equine or automobile, we all understood that the venue’s atmosphere would be the only thing to consider. More specifically, we were interested in the talent-level and attire of the spectators. At least for me, this question is best posed to the single, early-to-mid twenties me as opposed to the married, about to have a kid, mid-thirties me.

That being said, we all picked the Derby.

As NBC scanned the crowd, we saw a lot of dresses and big hats. The really disappointing aspect of the Derby, at least this year, was the weather. As we all know, hot, sunny weather (and scores of Mint Juleps) brings out the weaponry. Because of the rain, it seemed, to me anyway, that the crowd held back a bit. Don’t get me wrong, we still saw some things that still enticed us to go, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t feel letdown.

Maybe we’ll get together during the Indy 500 to see what there is to see there. As I said on Saturday, I’d expect to see a lot of Daisy Duke-esque jean shorts with the insides of the front pockets visibly sticking out. Tube tops and half shirts would also rule the day. Hmmm. Why did we all choose the Derby again? I guess that’s not fair because I’m told the infield in both places sport the same cast of characters. I suppose the difference I’m speaking about are in the actual seats (or luxury boxes in Kentucky).

There’s another element at work here that goes hand-in-hand with the talent issue that may increase or decrease your level of viewing enjoyment. That element is the talent’s date, otherwise known as husband or boyfriend of the talent. Answer me this, of these two profiles who are you more afraid of?

1. Drunk guy (off of Busch Light), age 22-35, crappy manual labor job, wearing 501s and an Urlacher jersey, sunburned, mad at the world, jealous of everyone.


2. Drunk guy (off of life and Mint Juleps), age 40-50, mutual fund manager (they still get paid, a lot), wearing a seersucker suit, spa-treatment skin, pleased with himself and his place in the world, apathetic (at best) toward everyone.

I’d fear No. 1 simply because he’s got absolutely nothing to lose by picking a fight with you for looking in the direction of his “special lady.” No. 2 would probably be so distracted by the scent of his own cash that he wouldn’t even notice if you switched hats with his date. Also, it’s likely that you could simply give No. 2 two for flinching, of course, he may have bodyguards, which changes things, but only slightly. Edge to the Derby, yet again.

Incidentally, I demand to know why NBC didn’t find out the reason behind Michael Jordan’s suit and why didn’t we get a full body shot on TV. We saw that preposterous jacket and tie, but we never got to see the suit in its full shoulder to feet glory. That thing looked like it came from Leroy’s Menswear on 3rd and Pike in Seattle.

One last thing about the race, which was interesting, but maybe due more to the jockey than the actual race itself. First, are all jockeys cocky? I don’t know who Calvin Borel was pointing at, but I’d like to think he was doing the equivalent of a Deion Sanders high stepping to the end zone. If so, god bless Calvin Borel because that was awesome. There’s nothing like a 4’10 guy telling other 4’10 guys that they can’t touch this.

Speaking of Borel, does he or does he not look like Gollum? My buddy Kevin and I thought of that at the same time on Saturday. I vote yes, but with a few caveats. Gollum may have been taller. Gollum clearly has upper teeth, whereas it’s unclear if Borel has any. I could understand Gollum a little more clearly than I can understand Borel; his animated Cajun twang was nearly indecipherable. One last thing, Chris noted that in addition to Gollum, he looks like the late Jim Varney of Earnest Goes to __ fame. By the way, take a look at how many of those Earnest movies were made That’s a startling amount of films for something so preposterous. One last thing about the broadcast, aside from the Olympic gymnastics, Bob Costas must love covering horseracing. These are the only times when he completely dwarf his interview subjects.

BT

It's impossible for me not to pile on here, so here goes, what else are we going to find out about A-Rod in the coming months?

How great is it that he has “rounded pectoral muscles” so much so that his Yankee teammates call him “bitch tits”? I thought steroids helped guys look more muscular and manly. It's news to me that it makes guys resemble women. We all know about the shrinking testicle thing, but this A-Rod story has brought new stuff to light. Steroid dealers must leave out that part when slangin roids to their junkies.

Dealer: “Yeah, these will get you really pumped up.”
Junkie: “So, will my pecs get really huge if I use this stuff?”
Dealer: (suppressing laughter): “Yeah. Definitely.”

As an aside, just look at that picture. I mean really look at it. It's too perfect.

The BT term has been tossed around to fatter dudes for quite some time. I first heard the term in college and it was appropriate for some guys. For all I know, they could have been roided up and couldn’t very well confess to that (either that, or they were just fat and sloppy).

Back to A-Rod, what else is there? Was he selling credit default swaps? Was he an advisor to Bernie Madoff? Did he bring the swine flu to the U.S.? Has he been secretly arming the insurgents in Iraq? Did he waterboard detainees? Was he behind the sale of the Sonics to Clay Bennett? Did he hurt Tiger’s knee? Did he kill that guy’s mom in “Slumdog Millionaire”? Was he a consultant for George Lucas on the prequels? Did he turn Lindsay Lohan? Was he filming hand signals? Did he kill Tupac and Biggie?

All of the above are possible. What’s also possible is that A-Rod may not be human. It’s unclear what evil forces are behind his creation, but some nefarious beings are pulling the strings and it’s getting out of hand. It’s too bad Arnold is busy running California (into the ground) because we could really use Douglas Quaid, John Matrix, Ben Richards, Dutch, or even Detective John Kimble to get to the bottom of this.

Leroy

Sometimes I absolutely love being wrong. This is one of those times. I’m floored that the Hawks were able to sign Hill. It looks like Hill meant it when he said he’d love to stay in Seattle. He wanted to stay here and it looks like he got a very reasonable deal. The reported number is 6 years 38M with over 15.5M guaranteed. That looks like a very fair deal for both sides. Hill is a hell of a player who deserves that payday. The Hawks also need him so that they’re able to do what they want to do defensively.

By waiting until after the draft and after most free agency money has been snatched up, the Hawks essentially screwed Hill by giving him no chance to sign elsewhere for big dollars. Ruskell knew this and was banking on him not signing elsewhere out of spite. It was a huge risk and he would have been absolutely ridiculed and vilified if Hill left, but he didn’t and that’s why he sits where he does and I sit here with my thumb up my ass.

But that doesn’t mean that Ruskell is not to be questioned. We don’t know if Ruskell is the least bit influenced by fans and the media, but it’s clear that the public outcry was “We Can’t Lose Leroy Hill.” If that outcry affected his decision to sign Hill, even to the most minute degree, then the spouting off, premature worrying, and doomsday scenarios were worth it. I will gladly look like a fool if the result benefits the team that I root for.

The team is shaping up, on the defensive side of the ball anyway, quite nicely.

• DE: Kerney. Please don’t be hurt. It would be very nice to see him make it through the entire year creating havoc on a consistent basis. They need him to be destructive.
• DE: Redding? Tapp? Jackson? What is up with Daryl Tapp? Is he simply not that talented because of his size? He had a monster four-sack game against St. Louis in ’07, but that’s highly skewed because St. Louis had one of the worst offensive lines in the game. It seems very likely that they don’t trust the guy to do the job and that he won’t be here much longer. I had high hopes for him, but the coaching staff doesn’t seem to. Who knows what to expect of Jackson, he didn’t show much during his rookie year, but he’s got size and ability so the book is still out on him. I actually thought that Redding was a DT when they traded for him because of his size (6’4 295) and he seems like a weird fit as a DE in a 4-3 alignment, but whatever.
• DT: Mebane. I love what I’ve seen out of this guy in his first few years. He was a great find in the third round and we’re lucky to have him. Rocky Bernard was fine, but not at any meaningful salary number.
• DT: Cole? Bryant? No idea what to expect out of these guys. They are both huge guys who will plug up holes and keep linemen off of the LBs.
• OLB: Curry. My man crush on Curry is in full effect. From a “good dude” perspective, he’s off of the charts. From a football player perspective, I only know what I’ve been told and seen in the highlights because I never saw Wake Forest play (a club that includes nearly everyone outside of the ACC). I choose to believe what people are telling me. Someone said that they reminded him of Julian Peterson. That seems like a very lazy comparison. For one, their body types are very different. Peterson was two inches taller (6’3 compared to 6’1) and weighed about 15 lbs less (240 compared to 254). Peterson is ripped like no one’s business, but he’s a more sinewy, athletic looking guy whereas Curry looks a lot more bulky and compact. I see Curry as more effective against the run with the ability to cover probably better than Peterson (in addition to being heavier, Curry is also faster than Peterson, at least timed faster 4.56 compared to 4.7). My hopes are dangerously high for this guy.
• MLB: Tatupu. Love him. Don’t have much more to say about him.
• OLB: Hill(!). See above. I’m ecstatic.
• CB: Trufant. He played well last year, but will be even better this year with Lucas on the other side. They are a great duo.
• CB: Lucas. Great signing for a cheap salary. They completely lucked into him. Also, I doubt very seriously that Nate Burleson will punch him in the face.
• SS: Grant. I still like this guy. Big hitter and great leader from all accounts.
• FS: Russell. I am unbelievably down on this guy. I can see very easily the young buck from Rutgers, Courtney Greene, beating him out. He didn’t make plays in the run or pass game and was massively disappointing. They need to upgrade here.

I’m looking forward to reading the reports out of minicamp this weekend.

Now, Ruskell, please get Curry into camp on time. I’m begging you. A training camp holdout would be akin to submerging my testicles in an ice bath.

Jeremy Tyler

I love this Jeremy Tyler story that I first read here and then subsequently here, here, and here.

From a “what the hell?” standpoint, I love that Olden Polynice was a volunteer coach on Tyler’s high school team. O.P. was on some spectacularly mediocre Sonics teams in the late 80s and I’ll never forget him. I remember going to a game when I was 15, looking at the program, and thinking that there was something wrong with his face, and then feeling sorry for him. Not that how he looks had anything to do with his ability to play hoops, but it’s the singular thing that I remember about him. He was never a horrible player and was certainly better than the cavalcade of Rich King-like stiffs the Sonics subjected us to over the years.

On a national level, I’m guessing that O.P. was best known for one of two things:

1. His arrest for impersonating a police officer
2. Getting traded on draft day from Chicago to Seattle for Scottie Pippen

Number two is especially galling on a personal level. I would have liked a core of Gary Payton, Scottie Pippen, and Shawn Kemp a great deal. Um, that probably would have been a decent defensive squad. Of course, Pippen may never have blossomed into Pippen if not for Jordan, but it’s very likely that he would have thrived alongside The Glove and the Reign Man… sigh… anyway, it looks like O.P. was the key ingredient (aside from Jordan) in the Bulls Dynasty.

Getting back to O.P.’s influence on Tyler, I really enjoyed this part of the article:

"Still, Polynice disagrees with Tyler’s decision to go to Europe. He said Tyler was being 'pimped;' he would not elaborate."

So O.P. just called Tyler a whore, which is a very nice thing to say about someone. Also, O.P. was never known for his work ethic, so it’s always funny to me when a guy like that gets to have any influence whatsoever on young people. For instance, when O.P was finishing his third tour of duty with the Sonics in the lockout shortened ’98-’99 season (otherwise known as the “Vin Baker Fattening Project”) and shooting an ungodly 30% from the free throw line he was routinely seen practicing half court shots at practice instead of working on parts of his game that might help the team.

O.P. comedy aside, it’s a very interesting story. Brandon Jennings’s story was and is fascinating because he was bypassing Arizona (who really could have used him this year) to play for cash in Italy. I loved that he was doing it because it sounded like he wasn’t going to qualify to play college ball and he wanted to stay sharp, learn some skills, and get paid. I mean, why not? I loved the Josh Childress story as well because he was being held hostage by the NBA restricted free agent rules and decided to exercise his options, as a free man in society, to do what he pleased, and get paid more for doing it. Good for him.

Now here comes young Jeremy Tyler and his decision to go to Europe and bypass his senior year in high school along the way. Every time I hear about a kid who leaves high school early (like the football players to enroll for the spring semester at Universities to take part in spring practices), I can’t help but think, “why would you want to leave high school early? I had fun in high school, especially my senior year.” Then I snap back to reality and realize that their lives and my life as a high schooler are slightly different. They’re going to be playing big time sports in college or the pros and I was going to run track in the spring and miss going to the state meet because I wasn’t good enough. I guess that’s different.

From what I understand, Tyler is going to leave school, but take online courses or be homeschooled, so he’ll still get his high school diploma. So what’s the big deal? Doesn’t this happen all of the time but we just don’t know about it or don’t care? Don’t child actors do this all of the time? The SI article pointed to entertainers who leave school early and finish elsewhere. The ESPN article talked about tennis and golf players who do this with regularity. I don’t get what the big deal is. Why the hand-wringing? Why the concern?

ESPN’s Doug Gottlieb, arguing that Tyler’s decision to go abroad said the following:

"If it is acceptable for Tyler to leave high school after his junior year to play professionally, when does it not become OK to leave? Tyler is setting a dangerous precedent by making this move. What about a sophomore or a freshman making a similar decision? Why even have high school at all?"

A few things here:

1. I’m not sure who needs to “accept” that Tyler could leave high school. It’s of no one’s concern but his and maybe his parents. It’s not a question of it being acceptable or “OK” for him to do this. He, or anyone else, can do this whenever the hell he feels like it.
2. This “dangerous” precedent-setting decision that Tyler is making is, again, of no one’s concern but his. Does he have some sort of obligation to anyone else but himself? Is he supposed to “think of the children”? If he wants to do this, then he should do this. If it affects someone else’s decision down the line, is that really on him? And if it does, does it matter?
3. Gottlieb asks, “Why even have high school at all?” I have the same question myself and am planning on writing about this at a later date. If these guys want to pursue their dreams of playing basketball and who also don’t care about school (I’m making assumptions here, but by and large if a guy leaves after one year in college or, previously, skipped college altogether, then they aren’t very interested in school… I’m just sayin’) then why should they go to school?

Aside from the obvious ethnocentric (scared of the European sports system) and racist stuff at work here (again, no worries about tennis/golf academies, entertainers, or foreign athletes who do this same thing) there is another element that doesn’t get mentioned and that’s the nationwide high school graduation rates for African Americans hovers around the mid 50% range every year. From what we know, Tyler is going to graduate from high school. What about the millions of kids who do not graduate from high school and who are not immensely talented basketball players? Where is the outcry about the education of these kids? Kids drop out of school at alarming rates and those that do earn far less than their cohorts that do earn their diplomas. Tyler is leaving high school, but plans on graduating, and is getting a head start on a potentially lucrative career.

People lament that kids are lazy and don’t take advantage of the opportunities that are provided to them. We get upset when someone doesn’t maximize his potential and make use of his talents. Well, Tyler’s talent is in basketball. He’s making a professional decision to do what he thinks is best for him.

Is it sketchy that Sonny Vaccaro is involved? Sure. But how is this any less seedy than college programs hiring a big-time recruit’s AAU coach or someone affiliated with that player with the hope that doing so will land them that recruit.

I mean, please. Stop with the goddamn hypocrisy already. Whether we agree or disagree with his decision is of no consequence. The teeth gnashing is insincere.