I was watching a rerun of one of my all-time favorite shows, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, today. It was the episode where Will joins the Bel Air prep basketball team for the first time. Previously, Bel Air prep was the worst in the league. It's just a bunch of shrimpy rich white boys and Carlton Banks. But now they have Will, who is awesome. Anyway, in one scene, the coach is diagramming the plays and it goes like this:
Coach: "OK, the guard passes it to the center, the center passes it to the forward, who passes it to the guard. What does he do?"
Player: "Pass it to Will?"
Coach: "Yes! Ok, next play. The center in-bounds the ball to the guard who passes it to the forward who passes it back to the guard who...."
Player: "Passes it to Will!"
Coach: "Excellent!"
As a Cavs fan, this might sound like a familiar strategy. It's the same gameplan the Cavs have had for....how long has Lebron been in the league again? That long. And Tuesday night gave me no indication that this year will be any different.
I know, that's definitely a bit of an overreaction to an opening loss to possibly the best team in basketball this season, but it's also level-headed realism.
Two things: 1) It's definitely early. I get this. The team needs much more time to gel and feel each other out. 2) Having everyone pass it to LeBron isn't a terrible strategy—especially since it has gotten the Cavs deep into the playoffs multiple times.
Having said that, I'm worried this team, gelling or no gelling, is going to be exactly like all of these other teams we've watched. Again, don't get me wrong. This Cavs team is really really good, and I appreciate that they are really really good. The addition of Shaq and Jamario Moon and Anthony Parker does give this team certain role players it needed. But I can't get past the term I used in that sentence: role players. This team, in this early, early stage, looks to me like it always does—LeBron and a bunch of role players.
LeBron and a bunch of role players definitely makes for a really really good team. However, Cleveland fans need this team to be great. There's a difference between really really good and great, and I don't think these new additions necessarily make up that difference.
Once again I will say, yes, I know it is early. The team played one game. I don't need to be reminded of this all of the time. I know we started 1-2 last year and finished with the one seed. And I know the Celtics are a great team, and their defense gives everyone trouble. But, some of us are forgetting that all of these things are reasons why the Cavs didn't go to the Finals last year, and before I'm going to really believe this team is the best in the league, they have to show me they are different than last year. And it's hard to convince me that the team is different than last year when, basically, the roster is once again LeBron and a bunch of stiffs. Talk about Shaq all you want, but he's a fat 38-year-old. Talk all you want about Mo Williams, but I don't think I've seen him since the regular season last year. Is he still alive? And the crazy thing is, he might not be alive because one of teammates is riding around on motorcycles with more firepower than the Unabomber.
In the end, this team is capable of doing all of this. There's no need for I-told-you-so's if they do win it all—mostly because I'll be incoherently drunk for three months. But the point is, that's the barometer. Championship. The grading and analysis of how this team is playing is beyond an average team or even a really really good team. I'm grading them against great teams. And they played one Tuesday night, at home. And they failed.
So all of the it's-early-they-are-gelling-we-got-better-in-the-offseason-Delonte-will-be-OK talk is fine, and I get it. But I need to see it.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
The only reason to watch the Browns this year
Here's a scenario:
You turn on a game to watch a team play a sport. The game is uninteresting and lopsided. One team is especially terrible. You turn game off.
That scene sounded reasonable, right? Why watch a bad game? That's not really the point of being a sports observer. The point is to be captivated, interested or entertained in some way.
But now, make that scenario more familiar. Add in your favorite team. For example:
I woke up Sunday morning, put on my Josh Cribbs jersey and went around town for some early morning errands. I had this feeling of "It's Sunday, the sun is shining, people are outside, I've got my Browns jersey on, let's drink beer and watch the game." I arrived home, turned the Browns game on and was immediately crestfallen. We suck. It's highly probable that the team I am watching the worst team in the NFL, and the worst Browns team I've ever watched play. It's not competitive at the half....
Now, working off our original scenario, the correct way to end this story would be to turn off the game and do something more entertaining, useful, fun, productive—basically anything that doesn't involve the Browns. Most of society, my dad included, would wholeheartedly agree—especially with THIS Browns team. It has been the same sad story for the last decade. If there's a time to put your family dog to sleep, there's a time to just let your favorite team fade into the background until it gets its shit together and at least makes games watchable, right?
Wrong.
What's that, I say? Wrong? Yes. Wrong. Now be careful, we're going to drift into a strange world of fanaticism devoid of all logic and reason.
As a true fan of a team, you enter into a binding social contract. This contract stipulates that no matter what, you will follow this team. There's no rules against obsessive bitching. There are no stipulations against blind optimism. There are no penalties for cheering on a guy that has murdered innocent children. The only real rule is: If you see your team's uniform playing a game, you will watch it and root for it. Period.
Obviously, there are exceptions when it comes to baskteball and baseball in order to lead a sociable, normal life, but the main instinct remains: complete devotion to following that team. Even football games can be missed here or there—but you can never willingly decide to not watch a game when you are perfectly able to do so. Intent is key.
Do I turn games off? Sure. For a minute or two to cool down, gather my thoughts and perhaps lower my expectations. I might even turn the game off and then take a drive and put it on the radio. But in the scenario I've built, I can never fully shun a game, no matter how pathetic it is.
That's what I signed up for. If I don't do that—if I just say "Man, they suck today, guess I'll turn it off and read a book," that makes me a bandwagon fan. Even if it happens only once in awhile and in the middle of a 15 -year drought where not one competitive game is played, it doesn't matter. Who's to say it won't happen again? Front runner! Bandwagon fan!
Disagree if you like, but if I consciously tune this Browns season out and just quit paying attention, next year, if they turn it around (just go with me on this), and I make sure to watch all of the games again, I would feel like a douchebag. And so should you.
For example, from 2002-2007, the Indians didn't make the playoffs. Not a big drought, not by any means, but it was coming off the '90s where a Central Division crown felt like a given. And during the drought, the team even had a competitive moment or two. But during that stretch, Indians fans dropped like flies. They all bitched about new ownership, sobbed into their Omar Vizquel jerseys and tuned the team out. I saw it happen to people I knew—people in my own family.
And there stood me and my brother. Bitter. Reading up on this new wave of guys. Pleading to people to keep watching and then growing more bitter. We made mental lists of everyone. Then, in 2007, when the team got hot, fans started coming back and getting excited again.
"Hey, this team isn't so bad! This is fun again!"
And there we were with our mental list.
"Oh, really? Now that the team is contending again you're going to watch? Screw you. Do you even know who these guys are? Name me 10 players! Sorry. Too bad. You're out. Find another team."
That's insanity, right? Yes. It is. Fanaticism is insanity. So, if you are going to actually call yourself a fan, this is what you do. You take alllllll of the good with allllllllll of the bad. All with all. No qualifiers.
So there you have it, Eric Mangini. The only reason anyone would watch your pathetic football team is out of devotion to a fictional sense of duty too disturbing to call goofy, but not disturbing enough to cause a holy war.
Feel free to use that as next year's marketing slogan.
You turn on a game to watch a team play a sport. The game is uninteresting and lopsided. One team is especially terrible. You turn game off.
That scene sounded reasonable, right? Why watch a bad game? That's not really the point of being a sports observer. The point is to be captivated, interested or entertained in some way.
But now, make that scenario more familiar. Add in your favorite team. For example:
I woke up Sunday morning, put on my Josh Cribbs jersey and went around town for some early morning errands. I had this feeling of "It's Sunday, the sun is shining, people are outside, I've got my Browns jersey on, let's drink beer and watch the game." I arrived home, turned the Browns game on and was immediately crestfallen. We suck. It's highly probable that the team I am watching the worst team in the NFL, and the worst Browns team I've ever watched play. It's not competitive at the half....
Now, working off our original scenario, the correct way to end this story would be to turn off the game and do something more entertaining, useful, fun, productive—basically anything that doesn't involve the Browns. Most of society, my dad included, would wholeheartedly agree—especially with THIS Browns team. It has been the same sad story for the last decade. If there's a time to put your family dog to sleep, there's a time to just let your favorite team fade into the background until it gets its shit together and at least makes games watchable, right?
Wrong.
What's that, I say? Wrong? Yes. Wrong. Now be careful, we're going to drift into a strange world of fanaticism devoid of all logic and reason.
As a true fan of a team, you enter into a binding social contract. This contract stipulates that no matter what, you will follow this team. There's no rules against obsessive bitching. There are no stipulations against blind optimism. There are no penalties for cheering on a guy that has murdered innocent children. The only real rule is: If you see your team's uniform playing a game, you will watch it and root for it. Period.
Obviously, there are exceptions when it comes to baskteball and baseball in order to lead a sociable, normal life, but the main instinct remains: complete devotion to following that team. Even football games can be missed here or there—but you can never willingly decide to not watch a game when you are perfectly able to do so. Intent is key.
Do I turn games off? Sure. For a minute or two to cool down, gather my thoughts and perhaps lower my expectations. I might even turn the game off and then take a drive and put it on the radio. But in the scenario I've built, I can never fully shun a game, no matter how pathetic it is.
That's what I signed up for. If I don't do that—if I just say "Man, they suck today, guess I'll turn it off and read a book," that makes me a bandwagon fan. Even if it happens only once in awhile and in the middle of a 15 -year drought where not one competitive game is played, it doesn't matter. Who's to say it won't happen again? Front runner! Bandwagon fan!
Disagree if you like, but if I consciously tune this Browns season out and just quit paying attention, next year, if they turn it around (just go with me on this), and I make sure to watch all of the games again, I would feel like a douchebag. And so should you.
For example, from 2002-2007, the Indians didn't make the playoffs. Not a big drought, not by any means, but it was coming off the '90s where a Central Division crown felt like a given. And during the drought, the team even had a competitive moment or two. But during that stretch, Indians fans dropped like flies. They all bitched about new ownership, sobbed into their Omar Vizquel jerseys and tuned the team out. I saw it happen to people I knew—people in my own family.
And there stood me and my brother. Bitter. Reading up on this new wave of guys. Pleading to people to keep watching and then growing more bitter. We made mental lists of everyone. Then, in 2007, when the team got hot, fans started coming back and getting excited again.
"Hey, this team isn't so bad! This is fun again!"
And there we were with our mental list.
"Oh, really? Now that the team is contending again you're going to watch? Screw you. Do you even know who these guys are? Name me 10 players! Sorry. Too bad. You're out. Find another team."
That's insanity, right? Yes. It is. Fanaticism is insanity. So, if you are going to actually call yourself a fan, this is what you do. You take alllllll of the good with allllllllll of the bad. All with all. No qualifiers.
So there you have it, Eric Mangini. The only reason anyone would watch your pathetic football team is out of devotion to a fictional sense of duty too disturbing to call goofy, but not disturbing enough to cause a holy war.
Feel free to use that as next year's marketing slogan.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Week 8 college football poll
CC's Top 15
Why 15? Because that's all that's necessary. These are all of the teams with true BCS importance.
The top 7 are fairly interchangeable. For the most part, all have beaten a big name or highly ranked team, and all have done it on the road. All have beefed up against lesser opponents. If Florida wasn't the defending champ, the Bearcats would be No.1.
1. Florida - I hate them, but defending champs stay No. 1 until they lose. Fair is fair.
2. Cincinnati - No HUGE wins, but lots of quality road wins. Dominated with No. 2 QB.
3. TCU - Quality road wins, including this latest pasting of BYU. Top mid-major thus far.
4. Alabama - Beat Va. Tech, have big time D, but dominance has faded. Nearly lost this week.
5. Iowa - Beat PSU at Happy Valley. Wins ugly Big Ten games. Great D. Love them.
6. Texas- Only big win versus Oklahoma—minus Bradford.
7. Boise St. - Beat Oregon when Oregon stunk and then beat a variety of patsies.
The one-loss teams are confusing. They've all looked impressive for stretches, but their losses were all epic failures for one reason or another. Some of them are playing better than some unbeatens right now (For example, pretty sure USC would beat six of the seven teams listed above.). But, college football demands perfection. If you lose, you no longer determine your destiny.
8. USC - Typical season. F this team.
9. Georgia Tech - One of the most fun teams to watch. Best team in ACC.
10. Oregon - After the Week 1 disaster, they are rolling. Some decent PAC 10 wins, if that exists.
11. Oklahoma State - Only loss is to a sneaky Houston team.
12. LSU - Haven't really proved anything yet.
13. Penn St. - Ditto.
14. Pittsburgh- Have beat nobody, but they have a great QB. Looked great lately.
15. Houston- Once you start putting teams like Houston on here. It's time to end the list.
Go Buckeyes, Go Browns.
Why 15? Because that's all that's necessary. These are all of the teams with true BCS importance.
The top 7 are fairly interchangeable. For the most part, all have beaten a big name or highly ranked team, and all have done it on the road. All have beefed up against lesser opponents. If Florida wasn't the defending champ, the Bearcats would be No.1.
1. Florida - I hate them, but defending champs stay No. 1 until they lose. Fair is fair.
2. Cincinnati - No HUGE wins, but lots of quality road wins. Dominated with No. 2 QB.
3. TCU - Quality road wins, including this latest pasting of BYU. Top mid-major thus far.
4. Alabama - Beat Va. Tech, have big time D, but dominance has faded. Nearly lost this week.
5. Iowa - Beat PSU at Happy Valley. Wins ugly Big Ten games. Great D. Love them.
6. Texas- Only big win versus Oklahoma—minus Bradford.
7. Boise St. - Beat Oregon when Oregon stunk and then beat a variety of patsies.
The one-loss teams are confusing. They've all looked impressive for stretches, but their losses were all epic failures for one reason or another. Some of them are playing better than some unbeatens right now (For example, pretty sure USC would beat six of the seven teams listed above.). But, college football demands perfection. If you lose, you no longer determine your destiny.
8. USC - Typical season. F this team.
9. Georgia Tech - One of the most fun teams to watch. Best team in ACC.
10. Oregon - After the Week 1 disaster, they are rolling. Some decent PAC 10 wins, if that exists.
11. Oklahoma State - Only loss is to a sneaky Houston team.
12. LSU - Haven't really proved anything yet.
13. Penn St. - Ditto.
14. Pittsburgh- Have beat nobody, but they have a great QB. Looked great lately.
15. Houston- Once you start putting teams like Houston on here. It's time to end the list.
Go Buckeyes, Go Browns.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Fall weekend stuff
Quick hits for the weekend:
• A really well-done column about being a Browns fan. Couldn't have said it better myself.
• Bill Simmons can be looked at as a joke sports writer because he sits on his couch and writes like a fan—but he KNOWS the NBA. He's one of the reasons I got back into the NBA, and I put more behind his basketball knowledge than anyone else. Having said that, here is what he said about Shaq in his NBA preview. Needless to say, I remain dubious about the Shaq era:
• A really well-done column about being a Browns fan. Couldn't have said it better myself.
• Bill Simmons can be looked at as a joke sports writer because he sits on his couch and writes like a fan—but he KNOWS the NBA. He's one of the reasons I got back into the NBA, and I put more behind his basketball knowledge than anyone else. Having said that, here is what he said about Shaq in his NBA preview. Needless to say, I remain dubious about the Shaq era:
"8. Shaquille O'Neal
Red flag No. 1: He's 835 pounds. Red flag No. 2: He has never successfully pulled off the whole "sidekick" thing; even to the bitter end, he was playing the big brother/little brother routine with Dwyane Wade. Red flag No. 3: He's splitting time with Zydrunas Ilgauskas, who might be a better fit for this particular team because of his outside shooting. Red flag No. 4: He has never, ever, ever, not in his entire life, played for a coach as offensively challenged as Mike Brown. Red flag No. 5: He doesn't have the luxury of Phoenix's training staff anymore. Red flag No. 6: He's so fat that it's like looking at one of those TVs where the HD is screwed up so it makes everyone seem wider. Red flag No. 7: The Suns traded him for two guys who they immediately bought out for a combined $14 million. Red flag No. 8: The Cavs are better off if he's playing 15-20 minutes a game and that's it. Red flag No. 9: He's so fat that it's possible Delonte West was packing three guns because he got confused and thought Shaq wanted to eat him. Red flag No. 10: He's awfully close to some records, which will make it awkward if Cleveland tries to reduce his playing time.
That's 10 red flags. Ten. (To be fair, Shaq doesn't look THAT fat. He just looks a little, um, heavy. Maybe it's the uniform that makes him look doughy for some reason. I just know that, when I saw the cover of Sports Illustrated this week, I couldn't figure out why Aretha Franklin shaved her head. Then I realized it was Shaq.) And that's before we get into the whole, "Shaq seems like a great guy, but if he's a great guy, then why did he leave four teams on really bad terms" thing. Be prepared for him to do more harm than good in Cleveland. One difference: If he crosses LeBron like he crossed Nash, he'll be getting the Braylon Edwards 48-hour ticket out of town."
• Here's a piece few will enjoy reading, but I liked it. A statistical analysis of centerfielders in the Indians' farm system. Proceed only if ye enjoy following Indians minor leaguers or statistical analysis.
• A good read about new Cavs swingman Jamario Moon. I know a guy that fired this writer in college.
My takes:
• Minnesota has a good QB in Adam Weber and another Pryor-type athlete freshman QB they are starting to mix in—the type of QB that has given Buckeyes defenses trouble in the past. Pryor just needs to not turn the ball over and the Buckeyes will win because of their defense, but Minnesota is very sneaky. If Pryor plays like he played last week, the Buckeyes will lose again. That's not saying much, but what I am saying is: each week it is increasingly important to note the play of Pryor. I don't feel like getting into it now, but Pryor needs to stay at QB, even though I curse his life when he turns the ball over. We all need to really pay attention to what he does this week. He needs to protect the ball at the very least. That's how Tressel teams win games, and as a sophomore, that's all I really want you to do. Hopefully his LeBron pep talk paid off. I know I feel better after it happened.
(And Mr. Tressel, please run the ball with Brandon Saine. Please. This is Ohio State. Establish the run. That's all that I ask.)
• The Browns are going to win. Mark it down. I have no real reasons to say why this will happen, but I just have this weird premonition. This sentence may be deleted come Sunday night.
• I'm going to drink a whole bunch of fall beers this weekend. Definitely mark that one down.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
We get it, no one likes Mangini
I understand the Browns look like a dried turd on the field this year. I understand the D.A. v Quinn battle is less exciting than a conversation on The Hills, and I understand that much of these debacles can somewhat be attributed to Eric Mangini—the dictator coach that fines players for taking water bottles, makes players run into each other at full speed without pads on, ships off star players, chews gum on the sidelines and looks a little too pudgy.
I get all of that. The Browns make me sad, and Mangini makes me mad. But get this—none of that is news. The Browns are always pathetic. We never have a QB that can play. We never have competent leadership. Moreover, it seems like half the league sucks this year. Look at this list of teams:
Buffalo
St. Louis
Oakland
Tennessee
Tampa Bay
Washington
Carolina
Seattle
Jacksonville
Kansas City
Detroit
Seriously, look at that list. It's conceivable the Browns are better than half of those teams. Well, maybe not, but possibly a few. We beat Buffalo, so definitely one. Point being, in the 2009 NFL season, either you are a really good team or a fairly incompetent team. And the Browns, a team that normally sucks, is once again among the dregs.
I mention all of this because it seems every day there is a new article or column that comes out that bashes Eric Mangini. One of my favorite sports writers, Joe Posnanski, calls him out as the worst hire ever. Rolling Stone—the music magazine—compares him to one of the deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history. Non-descript WWE wrestler The Miz says he wants to kick the shit out of him.
What's next? Martha Stewart designs Eric Mangini doormats to walk over? The Ringling Bros clowns in town for the circus mockingly boycott outside the stadium because Mangini is making their shtick look less foolish?
Why are all of these non-football people taking shots at him? What is so incredibly different about Mangini's bad football team in comparison to previous or current terrible football teams? This is what I don't get.
And again, I understand the Mangini era is sadder than Old Yeller thus far, but is he really so bad that he warrants all of this "I HATE THIS GUY!!!" attention? Tom Cable, the Raider's head coach, was literally about to go to jail for punching an assistant coach, and I feel like Mangini has garnered more attention for just generally being unlikable.
The last few years, the New York media treated him in a similar way, and the few Jets fans I've spoken to said they hated him. So, knowing that, why wasn't there this crazy anti-Mangini national sentiment then? It was New York for godsakes. If The Miz is calling him out for being a terrible coach in Cleveland, shouldn't The Rock or Ric Flair be calling him out for sucking ass in New York? Since when do people give a shit if Cleveland has a terrible coach? Should I actually be flattered in some way that so many people are trying to call attention to our plight?
In the end, I think I'm mostly frustrated because this overkill coverage has kicked in my Cleveland Defense Mechanism and made me feel obligated to defend Mangini. I'm saying things like, "He's got nothing to work with!" and "You turn around a four-win team in one year with two crappy QBs!" and "He's instilling discipline! They are committing fewer penalties!" and "No one has staph infection this year!" (credit Rob Fulop).
All I'm trying to say is there are bad coaches in the NFL. There are failed systems in the NFL. There are bad trades in sports. And, as always, there is a bad football team in Cleveland.
We get it.
Go Browns.
I get all of that. The Browns make me sad, and Mangini makes me mad. But get this—none of that is news. The Browns are always pathetic. We never have a QB that can play. We never have competent leadership. Moreover, it seems like half the league sucks this year. Look at this list of teams:
Buffalo
St. Louis
Oakland
Tennessee
Tampa Bay
Washington
Carolina
Seattle
Jacksonville
Kansas City
Detroit
Seriously, look at that list. It's conceivable the Browns are better than half of those teams. Well, maybe not, but possibly a few. We beat Buffalo, so definitely one. Point being, in the 2009 NFL season, either you are a really good team or a fairly incompetent team. And the Browns, a team that normally sucks, is once again among the dregs.
I mention all of this because it seems every day there is a new article or column that comes out that bashes Eric Mangini. One of my favorite sports writers, Joe Posnanski, calls him out as the worst hire ever. Rolling Stone—the music magazine—compares him to one of the deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history. Non-descript WWE wrestler The Miz says he wants to kick the shit out of him.
What's next? Martha Stewart designs Eric Mangini doormats to walk over? The Ringling Bros clowns in town for the circus mockingly boycott outside the stadium because Mangini is making their shtick look less foolish?
Why are all of these non-football people taking shots at him? What is so incredibly different about Mangini's bad football team in comparison to previous or current terrible football teams? This is what I don't get.
And again, I understand the Mangini era is sadder than Old Yeller thus far, but is he really so bad that he warrants all of this "I HATE THIS GUY!!!" attention? Tom Cable, the Raider's head coach, was literally about to go to jail for punching an assistant coach, and I feel like Mangini has garnered more attention for just generally being unlikable.
The last few years, the New York media treated him in a similar way, and the few Jets fans I've spoken to said they hated him. So, knowing that, why wasn't there this crazy anti-Mangini national sentiment then? It was New York for godsakes. If The Miz is calling him out for being a terrible coach in Cleveland, shouldn't The Rock or Ric Flair be calling him out for sucking ass in New York? Since when do people give a shit if Cleveland has a terrible coach? Should I actually be flattered in some way that so many people are trying to call attention to our plight?
In the end, I think I'm mostly frustrated because this overkill coverage has kicked in my Cleveland Defense Mechanism and made me feel obligated to defend Mangini. I'm saying things like, "He's got nothing to work with!" and "You turn around a four-win team in one year with two crappy QBs!" and "He's instilling discipline! They are committing fewer penalties!" and "No one has staph infection this year!" (credit Rob Fulop).
All I'm trying to say is there are bad coaches in the NFL. There are failed systems in the NFL. There are bad trades in sports. And, as always, there is a bad football team in Cleveland.
We get it.
Go Browns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)