Author: Anthony Stalter (Page 984 of 1503)

LeBron James…the Cleveland Browns wide receiver?

Check out these photos courtesy of Waiting For Next Year.com:

That’s enough to make the Brown fan in you think about the possibilities of LeBron lining up wide and enough to make the Cav fan in you want to take a bath with an electrical device.

I did an “All-Athlete (minus football players) Gridiron Team” one time in which I selected players from sports other than the NFL to fill a football team. I enlisted LeBron as a running back because Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett were my receivers, but I could definitely see King James as a wideout.

This is the best the Mets could come up with?

So the Mets unveiled their new uniform logo to celebrate the team’s move into Citi Field next season and not surprisingly, it’s taking some heat:

At its best, it’s being said to resemble the logo of a certain pizza company that once featured the ‘Noid. At its worst, it’s being categorized as the biggest affront to Mets fans since John Rocker’s sermon in SI.

Here’s what UniWatch’s Paul Lukas, a lifelong Mets fan, had to say:

“Compare (anything) to this, and the Mets’ effort comes off looking like amateur hour. Or maybe amateur minute. It looks like one of those cheapo generic marks you see in commercials or movies when the producers couldn’t afford the licensing fees for the real logos.”

Though some conspiracy theorists are saying that this is the Mets way of distancing the team from CitiGroup, that isn’t the case here. MLB doesn’t allow commercial logos on uniforms, so that wouldn’t even be an issue. More likely, it’s a case of the Mets being as dull and uninspiring as their ’08 bullpen. They could’ve held a coloring contest among preschoolers and still ended up with a better design than the one above.

It’s almost like the designers were told they had a month to come up with the logo and instead of working on it, they got hammered drunk every night, came in the day the design was due and scribbled something really quickly on a piece of paper. Then the people that were in charge of approving the design (also hammered drunk the night before) passed it through because they wanted to get home as fast as they could to sleep off their hangover.

Either that, or some first grader made the design out of Legos and the Mets’ brass went, “F*&k it – let’s go with the kid. Nobody’s going to care anyway.”

Does Plaxico Burress deserve another chance?

After soundly beating the Redskins 23-7 in Week 13 of the regular season, the New York Giants were unquestionably the best team in the NFC at 11-1. But two days before the victory in D.C., things suddenly changed for the G-Men.

On November 28, wide receiver Plaxico Burress brought a loaded weapon into a nightclub and instead of being responsible with it, he accidentally shot himself in the leg and forced the Giants to end his season by placing him on the non-football injury list.

The Giants never really recovered after that. They had beat the Redskins so convincingly that it gave the players and coaches the opportunity to say, “See? We don’t need him.” And the public bought it because they had witnessed Eli Manning throw for 305 yards without his star receiver being on the field.

But the Giants then went on to lose three of their final four games, including two games against divisional opponents. Manning, who had looked so good in the win against the Redskins, couldn’t even crack the 200-yard passing mark in any of the Giants’ last four games.

So New York limped into the playoffs (albeit still the No. 1 seed in the NFC), and were thumped by the six-seeded Philadelphia Eagles 23-11 last Sunday. They didn’t even reach the end zone once and Manning had trouble throwing in the swirling winds of Giant Stadium, completing just 15 of his 29 pass attempts for 169 yards and two interceptions.

While Manning’s struggles were more obvious, his receivers had issues as well. They couldn’t create separation from Philly’s defensive backs, they had trouble getting open and none of them could make a play to save Manning from his accuracy issues. They were horrible to say the least, which prompted at least one New York sports writer to suggest that Burress be given another shot next year.

It made sense – after all, he’s still under contract with the Giants until 2013. And if GM Jerry Reese even reiterated that he’s open to bringing Plax back, then why should anyone question the idea?

Here’s why: his selfish antics cost the Giants a chance to defend their Super Bowl title. What was nice about the 2007 version of the G-Men was that they didn’t have any selfish players. Granted, Burress was still on the team but he shut his mouth and played his role. He was instrumental in the Giants’ Super Bowl run and he waited until after the season to publicly demand a little contract respect from the team he had helped win a Lombardi Trophy.

On September 4, the Giants awarded Plaxico’s great play with a new five-year, $27.25 million contract. Almost three months later, Burress repaid them by shooting himself in the leg and leaving Manning and the team’s passing game in dire straits.

Every man deserves a second chance; nobody is perfect. But the Giants won last year because one of their biggest distractions – Jeremy Shockey – was on the sidelines. They certainly weren’t one of the best teams to appear in a Super Bowl (they might have even been one of the worst), but they played together and executed as one unit.

It’s easy to forgive Plax for his selfishness when you consider how bad Manning struggled with his receivers last Sunday. But don’t forget that the Giants were in that predicament because of Burress. What happens if he’s a choirboy for 13 weeks next year, just to do something stupid again right before the playoffs? Do they forgive him once more? No. They should part ways this offseason and work on re-building the receiving corps.

Receiver is one of the most overrated positions in the NFL and considering the Giants don’t have a ton of holes to fill, it’ll be easy for them to acquire a playmaker at wideout via the draft or free agency. Depending on the cap ramifications, they should part with the distraction that is Plaxico Burress and realize that they lost last Sunday because of him, not without him.

Great point about Mark McGwire and the “one-dimensional” argument

Ted Robinson of At Bat thinks that Mark McGwire is getting a raw deal from MLB Hall of Fame voters and brings up a great point about the argument that Big Mac was a one-dimensional player.

More voters are revealing their choices and it’s hard to argue that transparency is bad. I found the comments of a Boston voter puzzling and borderline deceiving. The man in question defended his anti-McGwire stance with the claim that McGwire was “one-dimensional.”

If we accept the premise, then we must ask what exactly is the problem with dominating the most important offensive dimension? McGwire, Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa were the greatest home run hitters of their era. Bonds won the career battle but McGwire was the pioneer.

McGwire was the first to hit 50 home runs in four consecutive seasons, a mark Bonds reached only once.

One-dimensional? McGwire won a Gold Glove, an award often scoffed at by the Numbers Crowd. Although no one should confuse McGwire with Keith Hernandez, the Gold Glove is voted on by managers and coaches.

Another thought rushes to me when I consider the phrase “one dimensional” when used as an insult, the manner in which the Boston writer intended. (Disclaimer 1: here we will violate, mildly, a personal rule against invoking the comparison argument with any present Hall of Famers. It is never the intent here to denigrate anyone already so honored, however…would that writer call Nolan Ryan “one-dimensional?” Ryan’s resume leads with the career strikeout record, which he smashed and, like McGwire, is a symbol of dominance. (Disclaimer 2: I acknowledge that strikeouts are regarded by many voters as significant, a stance with which I don’t agree).

Strikeouts must be the reason Ryan is in the Hall. It can’t be his 324 wins because his career winning percentage is barely over .500 (.526). Surely, no rational person would conclude that seven regular season no-hitters warrant Hall of Fame inclusion.

It’s hard to argue with that point. Some players (Ryan is one of them) are in the Hall because they excelled at one facet of the game. Ozzie Smith was a career .262-hitter, but he was also one of the greatest defensive shortstops to ever play the game. McGwire was one of the best power hitters to ever play the game.

But the difference between McGwire and those players is that Ryan and Smith never took performance-enhancing substances to excel at their craft. McGwire did and fair or unfair, it’ll likely keep him out of the Hall for a very long time, if not forever. Stats are sacred in baseball and McGwire achieved his stats with help. Hall voters can’t look past that.

« Older posts Newer posts »