Tag:Michael
Posted on: August 14, 2009 2:00 am
 

The media needs to just wait sometimes.

I just read two poorly-formulated blog posts about the Philadelphia Eagles signing Michael Vick.

My own initial reaction when I learned the news at 8:40 PM (4 minutes after the story broke on ESPN.com) was one of disgust and displeasure. That was my first reaction. 5 hours later I have a more optimistic opinion in terms of football, which is why I am waiting until now to write my own blog post about it. So before I start complaining about Mike Freeman and Pete Prisco, let me let you in on my view.

There is no way the Eagles signed Vick to give McNabb competition. They just gave McNabb an raise. Vick has been out of not only the NFL for the past 2 years, but been out of the free world for that long. He is not in football shape, and I would be willing to bet that he is not in shape in general at the moment. He has proven in the past that he can be a tremendous athlete. The Eagles will most likely be using him as a supplemental utility man, and I would also be suprised to see him make an impact this year. They'll find a place for him in the offense and McNabb will be the quarterback in the long run.

But I tell you what this is not: a shot at Donovan McNabb. In his press conference he stated a number of times that he lobbied for Vick to be signed! McNabb and Vick have had a mentor-player type relationship throughout Vick's career dating back to McNabb's days at Syracuse. Does this put pressure on McNabb to perform, having a capable backup behind him? Yeah, it sure does, but this is not a move that disrespects McNabb like the Kolb drafting did, because McNabb pulled for the move to be made.

That's my take. Now read these two articles by Pete Prisco and Mike Freeman:

Prisco - http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/
entry/6315047/16608752

Freeman - http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/
entry/6264363/16609825


Note the times on the initial posts. If they would have waited to write these articles until after the game they would have realized in McNabb's press conference that he lobbied for the move. It wasn't a suprise to McNabb. If I were a reporter, I would wait to get my facts straight before I write my bonehead opinion in a story with speculation used as substitutes for facts. This is more about Prisco's  post because I think had he waited, he would have come up with something more meaningful to say on the subject.

As for Freeman. If you've been to this site enough and read enough of his boneheaded opinions about sports, you won't find this to be a suprise. The typical read-more-into-it-than-you-need-to-
or-probably-should scenario if you ask me. Instead of writing about what Vick can or can't bring to the Eagles, talking about what kind of football sense this makes, no he chose to add a chapter to the same story we've been hearing for the past 10 years in Philadelphis, with the whole "booed at the draft" bit for about the 4,000th time. I'm going to agree that the move puts more pressure on McNabb to perform, but compared to the Kolb fiasco from last year, this move probably disrespected Freeman more than it disrespected McNabb.

What I am suprised to see is that no one is talking about the PR situation that is going to happen. How will the fans react? I mean, PETA has already released a statement saying that they are "disappointed with the Eagles for signing someone who hangs dogs..." etc. etc. blah blah shut up already. What he did was wrong, yes. But for goodness sake, PETA, give him a shot to right his ways, to prove that he is a changed person. The fan reaction is probably going to be mixed, I wouldn't be suprised if boos rain down on him, and I wouldn't be suprised to see protesters at Eagles events. Is this going to have an effect on the team? Write about that someone, and not the same old crap we see every other day in Philly.

Moral: Wait, get your facts straight, and stop forming your opinions based on speculation and nothing. You'll save yourself some embarassment.

Posted on: June 1, 2009 2:15 am
 

LeBron lost this series? I don't think so.

After a day to think about what I had just seen, and a day of ESPN trying to paint the picture in our heads, I was trying to decide how the Cavaliers actually lost that series to the Magic. The thing about that series is that it was completely possible for the Magic to win 4-1 if LeBron didn't make that sick shot at the buzzer in Game 2. ESPN and a bunch of newspaper columnists seem to think that LeBron lost that series because he didn't take over the game enough throughout the series. Does that constitute "losing the series" for the team? I'm not so sure.

I'm going to say that the Cavaliers' defense lost that series for them. The Magic were averaging over 100 points per game, and in the playoffs if you're going to have success you can't have that. Defense wins championships, not individual efforts. And lets face it, the Magic are a darn good basketball team. Think about what you have to defend when you are playing the Magic. You can play straight up man and run the risk of Dwight Howard imposing his will against your big guys in the paint. Alright, so to combat this you double Howard in the post. What does he do? He kicks it out and they pass it around to the open man who drains the 3-pointer. The Magic have shown in the playoffs a terrific ability to shoot from beyond the arc, and cetainly in pressure situations. Turkoglu has shot about 15 percentage points BETTER on the road than at home from behind the line. All you can do is hope that they have a poor shooting night.

That's your best-case-scenario. The Cavaliers, however, didn't commit to playing defense whatsoever in Game 6. Too many plays I saw easy looks at the basket. Too many bad fouls in the paint. How can your best defending big guy come out of the came 1:30 in with two fouls? Now I have to say that 24 points is hardly LeBron's best offensive effort, especially against Howard's 40, but when the team comes out with a lack of effort on the defensive side of the ball you can't blame one player in-particular.

So in conclusion, LeBron James alone did not lose this series for the Cavaliers, the defense did. However, LeBron James did not win this series for the Cavaliers. That is the difference between LeBron and MJ.

Quick Hits:
- I want to salute the efforts of Robin Soderling in his match today at the French Open, taking down world number 1 Rafael Nadal on his "home court" at Roland Garros. What a fantastic exhibition of tennis and an absolutely overpowering game today. We always wondered what it would take to de-throne the once-undefeated Nadal on clay, and especially at the Open, and today we witnessed it. Even though his 31-match win streak at the French Open is finished, we all have to take a step back and think about what we have witnessed over the past four years. This kid comes in and wins not only 31 matches in a row, but his FIRST 31 matches at the French Open before actually losing one. And better yet, until today he had never dropped 2 sets in one of those matches. He still has not played a 5-set match at the French Open. It will be interesting to see how he bounces back at Wimbledon, but one thing is for sure: We are in the midst of two of the greatest tennis players to live in their prime: Nadal and Federer.

- Watch for the Red Wings to take the Stanley Cup Finals in 5 games. They are far and away the best team in the NHL this year, and their dominant play so far has backed them up.

 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com