Today's a big day for sports in Pittsburgh. The Penguins play the Bruins at 1 PM. The Steelers battle the Hated Ravens at 4:30. And apparently, there's also a Pitt basketball game tonight. I only know because several people have mentioned offers of free tickets, which they declined. Poor Pitt. Don't worry. By the time March Madness rolls around, you'll only have to compete with the Penguins.
I haven't blogged here in a while because I am lazy, and I haven't had much to say. But I didn't feel it was right to let this momentous occasion pass without leaving a little positive mojo out there for my Steelers. I hope the game goes just like this one did.
Go Pens, Go Steelers, Go Pittsburgh!
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Not so little sisters
The scenario is a common one. A college football team gains some respectability, but has not quite broken into the sport’s top echelon. They go through their season undefeated, although critics maintain that their schedule is weak. Despite their record, they are not invited to the championship game.
Sound like Boise State? TCU? Try Colgate in 1932.
Not only did the Red Raiders go undefeated that year, they did not allow a point—which no Division I team has done since 1939, and would be inconceivable in today’s college football world. Nevertheless, they were not invited to the Rose Bowl (the de facto college championship at that time), which instead chose twice-tied Pitt, which was blown out by USC.
To use one of writing’s worst (if often appropriate) clichés, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
For all the talk about the BCS system, it hasn’t changed anything. Every year, questions and controversy surround the champion.
Now comes E. Gordon Gee, president of The Ohio State University, and his remark that teams such as Boise State and TCU don’t deserve to play in the BCS Championship Game, implying that they play “Little Sisters of the Poor.”
While Boise State and TCU play in conferences that are, generally, a step below the Big Ten/11/12 or whatever you want to call it now or the SEC, I would be hard-pressed to call any of their opponents “Little Sisters of the Poor.” One reason for their weaker schedules is that the big boys don’t want to play these schools.
Why? Ask Virginia Tech, beaten by Boise State earlier this year at FedEx Field—neutral, but much closer to Blacksburg than to the Broncos’ blue (do not adjust your set) turf.
Ask Oklahoma, beaten by Boise State in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl.
And, while I am an OSU fan who will be cheering them on as they destroy Michigan Saturday, let’s talk about the Buckeyes’ “Little Sisters” for a minute.
The scheduling of non-conference mid-majors early in the season amounts to an Ohio State tradition. Note that the following teams have been on the Buckeyes’ recent past and future schedules:
2008: Youngstown State, Ohio U., and Troy.
2009: New Mexico State
2010: Marshall, Ohio U., Eastern Michigan
2011: Akron, Toledo
2012: Miami (Ohio), Alabama-Birmingham
None of these schools are literally “Little Sisters of the Poor,” but they are mid-major programs similar to those played by Boise State and TCU. The Buckeyes have the additional advantage of playing all of them in Ohio Stadium (except Toledo, which will be played in Cleveland). Not sure why, but I imagine it has to do with logistics—the opponents’ stadiums would have trouble handling the size of a crowd that the Buckeyes would attract.
Gee is certainly smart enough to know who’s paying him to make statements such as this—but “Little Sisters of the Poor”? Even a Buckeye fan like me has to give him 15 yards for piling on.
Sound like Boise State? TCU? Try Colgate in 1932.
Not only did the Red Raiders go undefeated that year, they did not allow a point—which no Division I team has done since 1939, and would be inconceivable in today’s college football world. Nevertheless, they were not invited to the Rose Bowl (the de facto college championship at that time), which instead chose twice-tied Pitt, which was blown out by USC.
To use one of writing’s worst (if often appropriate) clichés, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
For all the talk about the BCS system, it hasn’t changed anything. Every year, questions and controversy surround the champion.
Now comes E. Gordon Gee, president of The Ohio State University, and his remark that teams such as Boise State and TCU don’t deserve to play in the BCS Championship Game, implying that they play “Little Sisters of the Poor.”
While Boise State and TCU play in conferences that are, generally, a step below the Big Ten/11/12 or whatever you want to call it now or the SEC, I would be hard-pressed to call any of their opponents “Little Sisters of the Poor.” One reason for their weaker schedules is that the big boys don’t want to play these schools.
Why? Ask Virginia Tech, beaten by Boise State earlier this year at FedEx Field—neutral, but much closer to Blacksburg than to the Broncos’ blue (do not adjust your set) turf.
Ask Oklahoma, beaten by Boise State in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl.
And, while I am an OSU fan who will be cheering them on as they destroy Michigan Saturday, let’s talk about the Buckeyes’ “Little Sisters” for a minute.
The scheduling of non-conference mid-majors early in the season amounts to an Ohio State tradition. Note that the following teams have been on the Buckeyes’ recent past and future schedules:
2008: Youngstown State, Ohio U., and Troy.
2009: New Mexico State
2010: Marshall, Ohio U., Eastern Michigan
2011: Akron, Toledo
2012: Miami (Ohio), Alabama-Birmingham
None of these schools are literally “Little Sisters of the Poor,” but they are mid-major programs similar to those played by Boise State and TCU. The Buckeyes have the additional advantage of playing all of them in Ohio Stadium (except Toledo, which will be played in Cleveland). Not sure why, but I imagine it has to do with logistics—the opponents’ stadiums would have trouble handling the size of a crowd that the Buckeyes would attract.
Gee is certainly smart enough to know who’s paying him to make statements such as this—but “Little Sisters of the Poor”? Even a Buckeye fan like me has to give him 15 yards for piling on.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Horse of the Year? It's no contest
So now the controversy begins.
As far as the Eclipse Award voters are concerned, the result of Saturday’s Breeders’ Cup Classic could not have been worse.
First there is Zenyatta, who has not won Horse of the Year despite going 19-for-20. She did almost everything asked of her throughout her career, although there were disputes in the racing community as to just how good she was. Many said she faced soft fields of fillies and mares that were far inferior, and that her greatest triumph—the 2009 Breeders’ Cup Classic—came on a synthetic surface.
Then there’s Blame, who Daily Racing Form is already describing as “the probable Horse of the Year” based on his head victory in yesterday’s race. It’s hard to take anything away from Blame, as he was clearly the best older male horse of the year. His only loss in five starts came in the Jockey Club Gold Cup, where Haynesfield was able to slow the pace down and come home with an easy win. Since Blame beat Zenyatta yesterday, Horse of the Year should be a lock, right?
It’s not so easy. Zenyatta did win five of six races this year, one of them on dirt, so it would be misleading to say that she could run only on synthetic surfaces. If you want to argue about track surfaces, note that three of the biggest wins of Blame’s career came at Churchill Downs.
But the criteria for Horse of the Year should go beyond statistics this year. Zenyatta did something for horse racing that hasn’t been done in a long time—she captured the imagination of the fans and had people who don’t know a furlong from a fetlock talking about racing. She became a superstar in a sport that’s needed one for decades.
I’ve never heard crowd noise at a horse race like I heard on yesterday’s telecast as Zenyatta was being led to the paddock. There were 72,739 in attendance, all betting on different horses, but they all agreed on one thing—this big mare with her unique demeanor, pawing and dancing for the crowd, is one of the greatest Thoroughbreds in history.
Zenyatta did more than win a few races. She gave new life to a sport that, depending on who you ask, has been in any one of several degrees of decline.
How can she not be rewarded with Horse of the Year?
As far as the Eclipse Award voters are concerned, the result of Saturday’s Breeders’ Cup Classic could not have been worse.
First there is Zenyatta, who has not won Horse of the Year despite going 19-for-20. She did almost everything asked of her throughout her career, although there were disputes in the racing community as to just how good she was. Many said she faced soft fields of fillies and mares that were far inferior, and that her greatest triumph—the 2009 Breeders’ Cup Classic—came on a synthetic surface.
Then there’s Blame, who Daily Racing Form is already describing as “the probable Horse of the Year” based on his head victory in yesterday’s race. It’s hard to take anything away from Blame, as he was clearly the best older male horse of the year. His only loss in five starts came in the Jockey Club Gold Cup, where Haynesfield was able to slow the pace down and come home with an easy win. Since Blame beat Zenyatta yesterday, Horse of the Year should be a lock, right?
It’s not so easy. Zenyatta did win five of six races this year, one of them on dirt, so it would be misleading to say that she could run only on synthetic surfaces. If you want to argue about track surfaces, note that three of the biggest wins of Blame’s career came at Churchill Downs.
But the criteria for Horse of the Year should go beyond statistics this year. Zenyatta did something for horse racing that hasn’t been done in a long time—she captured the imagination of the fans and had people who don’t know a furlong from a fetlock talking about racing. She became a superstar in a sport that’s needed one for decades.
I’ve never heard crowd noise at a horse race like I heard on yesterday’s telecast as Zenyatta was being led to the paddock. There were 72,739 in attendance, all betting on different horses, but they all agreed on one thing—this big mare with her unique demeanor, pawing and dancing for the crowd, is one of the greatest Thoroughbreds in history.
Zenyatta did more than win a few races. She gave new life to a sport that, depending on who you ask, has been in any one of several degrees of decline.
How can she not be rewarded with Horse of the Year?
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Working both ends of the street
The recent controversy over hits in the NFL shows that the league is, to borrow a phrase from my dad, working both ends of the street.
Not that the league is much different from many other forms of entertainment in this respect. Norman Lear built his TV empire on "All in the Family," a show that condemned bigotry while making it humorous. Some people laughed with Archie Bunker, others laughed at him, but everybody watched.
So it is with the NFL's policy toward "illegal" hits. The fines of several players, including Steeler James Harrison, reflect a recent concern with the damage some hits can do to players.
I can understand why the NFL wants to tone down violence in the game, especially since evidence shows that the cumulative effect of a career full of hits can result in a variety of health problems and premature death. Retirement benefits and liability have become issues, so the NFL is not addressing this concern solely out of the goodness of its heart.
But this recent concern causes its own problem. Let's face it--much of the attraction of football is in its violence. Something in us wants to see the big hits, as long as they're within the rules of the game. "Jacked Up!" got our attention in a way "C'Mon, Man!" just can't.
The NFL knows this. Until last week, they were selling pictures of the hit on the Browns' Mohammed Massaquoi that cost Harrison $75,000. Since that one's been taken down, here's one of Harrison sacking Philip Rivers. Perfectly legal, and, as you can see from the price list, very lucrative.
It remains to be seen how far the NFL will be able to go with toning down the violence. Football is a violent game, after all, and there is the risk that fans could lose interest if the action is slowed too much. Egregious shots, such as leading with the head, should not be tolerated. The balance between the appeal of the big hit and the safety of the players will not be easy to reconcile in the next few years. The NFL may have to work both ends of the street for quite some time.
Not that the league is much different from many other forms of entertainment in this respect. Norman Lear built his TV empire on "All in the Family," a show that condemned bigotry while making it humorous. Some people laughed with Archie Bunker, others laughed at him, but everybody watched.
So it is with the NFL's policy toward "illegal" hits. The fines of several players, including Steeler James Harrison, reflect a recent concern with the damage some hits can do to players.
I can understand why the NFL wants to tone down violence in the game, especially since evidence shows that the cumulative effect of a career full of hits can result in a variety of health problems and premature death. Retirement benefits and liability have become issues, so the NFL is not addressing this concern solely out of the goodness of its heart.
But this recent concern causes its own problem. Let's face it--much of the attraction of football is in its violence. Something in us wants to see the big hits, as long as they're within the rules of the game. "Jacked Up!" got our attention in a way "C'Mon, Man!" just can't.
The NFL knows this. Until last week, they were selling pictures of the hit on the Browns' Mohammed Massaquoi that cost Harrison $75,000. Since that one's been taken down, here's one of Harrison sacking Philip Rivers. Perfectly legal, and, as you can see from the price list, very lucrative.
It remains to be seen how far the NFL will be able to go with toning down the violence. Football is a violent game, after all, and there is the risk that fans could lose interest if the action is slowed too much. Egregious shots, such as leading with the head, should not be tolerated. The balance between the appeal of the big hit and the safety of the players will not be easy to reconcile in the next few years. The NFL may have to work both ends of the street for quite some time.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Fun with random numbers
OK, another NFL season is upon us, and I have an excuse for writing this blog again.
Let's face it--I just don't care about baseball anymore, for reasons that I've already articulated here and on Fritzburgh An'at several times. That said, I'm rooting for the Reds for old time's sake and all those games I listened to on WLW as a kid.
I have gotten so used to the Steelers being bashed by the pundits this year that I've had my Sports Illustrated NFL Preview lying on my desk for a week before I finally noticed a few choice words under the word "Preview" that brought a smile to my face. Thank you, Peter King. I think.
Last year, I made NFL predictions that couldn't have been farther off base. I picked the Steelers over the Falcons in the Super Bowl. Maybe I just saw this Sunday's game instead.
Since I didn't want to jinx the Steelers again, I decided to have a little fun instead. I decided to leave the season up to the random number generator on my calculator.
Here's how it worked: I found a prediction online (I don't even remember where it was) that included a prediction of the number of wins. Then I assigned a range to each team based on the number of predicted wins. For instance, here was the prediction for the AFC North:
Cincinnati 12-4
Pittsburgh 11-5
Baltimore 9-7
Cleveland 3-13
So 1 through 12 meant the Bungles, 13 to 23 the Steelers, 24 to 32 the Birdies and 33 to 35 the Brownies. The first number I drew finished first, the next number (not counting repeats) second, and so on. Playoff games were picked in similar fashion.
Here's what I came up with--which proves, without a doubt, that there were no re-rolls or personal bias whatsoever:
AFC East: Miami, New England, Buffalo, NY Jets.
AFC North: Cleveland [sic], Pittsburgh (wild card), Cincinnati, Baltimore.
AFC South: Tennessee, Indianapolis (wild card), Jacksonville, Houston.
AFC West: Kansas City, San Diego, Denver, Oakland.
NFC East: Washington, NY Giants (wild card), Philadelphia, Dallas.
NFC Central: Detroit (and with the best overall record!), Minnesota, Chicago, Green Bay.
NFC South: New Orleans, Carolina (wild card), Atlanta, Tampa Bay.
NFC West: San Francisco, Arizona, Seattle, St. Louis.
I came up with an algorithm for the season records, but the results were so ridiculous I'm too embarrassed to publish them.
So here are the playoffs:
AFC Wild Card: Pittsburgh over Kansas City, Indianapolis over Cleveland.
NFC Wild Card: Giants over New Orleans, Carolina over Washington.
AFC Semifinals: Miami over Indianapolis, Pittsburgh over Tennessee.
NFC Semifinals: San Francisco over NY Giants, Carolina over Detroit.
AFC Championship: Miami over Pittsburgh.
NFC Championship: Carolina over San Francisco.
And the randomly-generated winner of Super Bowl XLV is.....The Carolina Panthers.
So if there are any Panthers fans reading this, you can sleep a little better tonight knowing that a few microchips in a 10-year-old calculator owned by a cube farmer in Penn Hills, Pa., think your team will win the Super Bowl.
But I like Peter King's opinion better. HERE WE GO, STEELERS, HERE WE GO!
Let's face it--I just don't care about baseball anymore, for reasons that I've already articulated here and on Fritzburgh An'at several times. That said, I'm rooting for the Reds for old time's sake and all those games I listened to on WLW as a kid.
I have gotten so used to the Steelers being bashed by the pundits this year that I've had my Sports Illustrated NFL Preview lying on my desk for a week before I finally noticed a few choice words under the word "Preview" that brought a smile to my face. Thank you, Peter King. I think.
Last year, I made NFL predictions that couldn't have been farther off base. I picked the Steelers over the Falcons in the Super Bowl. Maybe I just saw this Sunday's game instead.
Since I didn't want to jinx the Steelers again, I decided to have a little fun instead. I decided to leave the season up to the random number generator on my calculator.
Here's how it worked: I found a prediction online (I don't even remember where it was) that included a prediction of the number of wins. Then I assigned a range to each team based on the number of predicted wins. For instance, here was the prediction for the AFC North:
Cincinnati 12-4
Pittsburgh 11-5
Baltimore 9-7
Cleveland 3-13
So 1 through 12 meant the Bungles, 13 to 23 the Steelers, 24 to 32 the Birdies and 33 to 35 the Brownies. The first number I drew finished first, the next number (not counting repeats) second, and so on. Playoff games were picked in similar fashion.
Here's what I came up with--which proves, without a doubt, that there were no re-rolls or personal bias whatsoever:
AFC East: Miami, New England, Buffalo, NY Jets.
AFC North: Cleveland [sic], Pittsburgh (wild card), Cincinnati, Baltimore.
AFC South: Tennessee, Indianapolis (wild card), Jacksonville, Houston.
AFC West: Kansas City, San Diego, Denver, Oakland.
NFC East: Washington, NY Giants (wild card), Philadelphia, Dallas.
NFC Central: Detroit (and with the best overall record!), Minnesota, Chicago, Green Bay.
NFC South: New Orleans, Carolina (wild card), Atlanta, Tampa Bay.
NFC West: San Francisco, Arizona, Seattle, St. Louis.
I came up with an algorithm for the season records, but the results were so ridiculous I'm too embarrassed to publish them.
So here are the playoffs:
AFC Wild Card: Pittsburgh over Kansas City, Indianapolis over Cleveland.
NFC Wild Card: Giants over New Orleans, Carolina over Washington.
AFC Semifinals: Miami over Indianapolis, Pittsburgh over Tennessee.
NFC Semifinals: San Francisco over NY Giants, Carolina over Detroit.
AFC Championship: Miami over Pittsburgh.
NFC Championship: Carolina over San Francisco.
And the randomly-generated winner of Super Bowl XLV is.....The Carolina Panthers.
So if there are any Panthers fans reading this, you can sleep a little better tonight knowing that a few microchips in a 10-year-old calculator owned by a cube farmer in Penn Hills, Pa., think your team will win the Super Bowl.
But I like Peter King's opinion better. HERE WE GO, STEELERS, HERE WE GO!
Saturday, July 10, 2010
LeFaust (or why a Pittsburgher feels sorry for Cleveland)
There are few people in America who don’t have an opinion on LeBron James signing with the Miami Heat. James accomplished a rare feat Thursday night—alienating NBA fans in five different cities at the same time.
The reaction of the studio audience to “The Decision” was a harbinger of the backlash to come. After James said, “I’m taking my talents to South Beach and signing with the Miami Heat,” there was the sound of one person clapping and a few muffled groans. It sounded as if a fifth-rate stand-up comic had just told an ethnic joke.
The ESPN montage has been constant since—a few happy fans in Miami interspersed with footage of people crying and torching LeBron jerseys in Cleveland.
In retrospect, James’ decision was more predictable than it appeared. The problems were apparent for a while—disappointing playoff runs over the past two seasons, followed by a team meltdown against Boston in the Eastern Conference semifinals. Then came the opportunity to play with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh in Miami, and the move was complete. Yeah, there was also that whole “no state income tax” thing.
My Facebook friends list was full of angry people Thursday night—not just Cavaliers fans, but also Cleveland natives. And I was disappointed, too.
I’m not a big NBA fan, in part because Pittsburgh has no NBA team, but also because I think the NBA suffers too much from the superstar syndrome and has strayed from the fundamentals of the game. I think NBA referees officially stopped calling traveling back around 1995 or so.
At the same time, the Cavs have been my default favorite NBA team for the past few years. I figured that they gave Cleveland the best chance to win a sports championship—and without beating a Pittsburgh team! I could root for a Cleveland team without being a traitor.
But I also admired LeBron James. He came across as very mature for his age when he was drafted right out of Akron St. Vincent-St. Mary High School. While his basketball skills were obvious, he was already filling ESPN with witty, insightful quotes at 18. When asked if he was the new face of the NBA, he said, “No. Jerry West is the face of the NBA,” referring to West’s silhouette on the NBA logo.
From a pure basketball standpoint, it’s hard to argue with James’ decision. The biggest problem LeBron faced in Cleveland was the franchise’s inability to surround him with players who were close to his ability. In Miami, he will be playing for the closest thing to a Dream Team outside the Olympics. Think about this carefully. Dwyane Wade…Anderson Varejao. Chris Bosh…Jimario Moon. All questions of loyalty aside, what would you do?
I’m not going out on much of a limb by predicting that LeBron will be wearing a championship ring one year from today. But I feel for the city and its people who have been left in his wake.
I grew up in Columbus, where Ohio State football has always been the center of the sports universe. Pro sports loyalties (aside from the Blue Jackets—who first took to the ice when I was 33) are split between Cleveland and Cincinnati teams, with a slight leaning toward the Cincinnati sphere of influence.
As such, I did not realize how much pro sports mean to a city until I got to know some Cleveland natives in college. They were passionate about their city and all things connected to it (I haven’t heard so much Michael Stanley Band before or since), including the Indians and the Browns—not so much the Cavs, but remember that this was before LeBron was born. They suffered through every losing season with the familiar mantra of “wait ‘til next year.”
LeBron was a one-man, million-dollar industry in Cleveland. The giant “We Are All Witnesses” Nike ad downtown was well known, while ticket and memorabilia sales, not to mention food, drink and parking, were a bright spot for the otherwise depressed area. A franchise known for years as the “Cadavaliers” was suddenly one of the NBA’s top teams, and a city notorious for its sports losers had hope.
All that is gone now.
By any logical standards (bearing in mind that the games still have to be played), LeBron will have his title—but at what cost?
The reaction of the studio audience to “The Decision” was a harbinger of the backlash to come. After James said, “I’m taking my talents to South Beach and signing with the Miami Heat,” there was the sound of one person clapping and a few muffled groans. It sounded as if a fifth-rate stand-up comic had just told an ethnic joke.
The ESPN montage has been constant since—a few happy fans in Miami interspersed with footage of people crying and torching LeBron jerseys in Cleveland.
In retrospect, James’ decision was more predictable than it appeared. The problems were apparent for a while—disappointing playoff runs over the past two seasons, followed by a team meltdown against Boston in the Eastern Conference semifinals. Then came the opportunity to play with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh in Miami, and the move was complete. Yeah, there was also that whole “no state income tax” thing.
My Facebook friends list was full of angry people Thursday night—not just Cavaliers fans, but also Cleveland natives. And I was disappointed, too.
I’m not a big NBA fan, in part because Pittsburgh has no NBA team, but also because I think the NBA suffers too much from the superstar syndrome and has strayed from the fundamentals of the game. I think NBA referees officially stopped calling traveling back around 1995 or so.
At the same time, the Cavs have been my default favorite NBA team for the past few years. I figured that they gave Cleveland the best chance to win a sports championship—and without beating a Pittsburgh team! I could root for a Cleveland team without being a traitor.
But I also admired LeBron James. He came across as very mature for his age when he was drafted right out of Akron St. Vincent-St. Mary High School. While his basketball skills were obvious, he was already filling ESPN with witty, insightful quotes at 18. When asked if he was the new face of the NBA, he said, “No. Jerry West is the face of the NBA,” referring to West’s silhouette on the NBA logo.
From a pure basketball standpoint, it’s hard to argue with James’ decision. The biggest problem LeBron faced in Cleveland was the franchise’s inability to surround him with players who were close to his ability. In Miami, he will be playing for the closest thing to a Dream Team outside the Olympics. Think about this carefully. Dwyane Wade…Anderson Varejao. Chris Bosh…Jimario Moon. All questions of loyalty aside, what would you do?
I’m not going out on much of a limb by predicting that LeBron will be wearing a championship ring one year from today. But I feel for the city and its people who have been left in his wake.
I grew up in Columbus, where Ohio State football has always been the center of the sports universe. Pro sports loyalties (aside from the Blue Jackets—who first took to the ice when I was 33) are split between Cleveland and Cincinnati teams, with a slight leaning toward the Cincinnati sphere of influence.
As such, I did not realize how much pro sports mean to a city until I got to know some Cleveland natives in college. They were passionate about their city and all things connected to it (I haven’t heard so much Michael Stanley Band before or since), including the Indians and the Browns—not so much the Cavs, but remember that this was before LeBron was born. They suffered through every losing season with the familiar mantra of “wait ‘til next year.”
LeBron was a one-man, million-dollar industry in Cleveland. The giant “We Are All Witnesses” Nike ad downtown was well known, while ticket and memorabilia sales, not to mention food, drink and parking, were a bright spot for the otherwise depressed area. A franchise known for years as the “Cadavaliers” was suddenly one of the NBA’s top teams, and a city notorious for its sports losers had hope.
All that is gone now.
By any logical standards (bearing in mind that the games still have to be played), LeBron will have his title—but at what cost?
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Back to back to backup
Just one year after Pittsburgh was on top of the sports world, suddenly there's nothing going on here in the wide, wide world of sports.
The Steelers didn't make the playoffs, our quarterback has been suspended for acting like an idiot, the Penguins have been eliminated from the Stanley Cup playoffs and the Pirates are, well, the Pirates. Right now, the biggest sports story in town is which QB is going to fill in for Ben Roethlisberger during the first four to six games of the season.
There's Dennis Dixon, who did well in one game against the Ravens last season, but is being remembered by too many for the one errant throw that cost the Steelers the game in overtime. There's Byron Leftwich, who filled in admirably for Ben in several games in 2008. Then there's Charlie Batch, the 13-year veteran and Homestead native who has been the number-two quarterback for several seasons.
The smart money is on Leftwich, as he has been working with the first team offense during the most recent spring practices. He would be a good choice, as he has had some experience with several NFL teams over the past few years and is known for being strong through adversity. Who can forget how he was carried down the field by his teammates through several series during that game at Marshall?
At the same time, it's important to give Dixon some additional experience as he enters his third NFL season, and Roethlisberger's current suspension looks like the perfect opportunity for him.
The upcoming Steelers season cannot be written off already. I've heard people saying things like "When we're 1-3 when Ben comes back..." I would not make that assumption. We have two former NFL starters in Leftwich and Batch and, in Dixon, a Heisman Trophy frontrunner before his college career-ending injury. NFL teams have been in much worse situations at QB.
The Steelers didn't make the playoffs, our quarterback has been suspended for acting like an idiot, the Penguins have been eliminated from the Stanley Cup playoffs and the Pirates are, well, the Pirates. Right now, the biggest sports story in town is which QB is going to fill in for Ben Roethlisberger during the first four to six games of the season.
There's Dennis Dixon, who did well in one game against the Ravens last season, but is being remembered by too many for the one errant throw that cost the Steelers the game in overtime. There's Byron Leftwich, who filled in admirably for Ben in several games in 2008. Then there's Charlie Batch, the 13-year veteran and Homestead native who has been the number-two quarterback for several seasons.
The smart money is on Leftwich, as he has been working with the first team offense during the most recent spring practices. He would be a good choice, as he has had some experience with several NFL teams over the past few years and is known for being strong through adversity. Who can forget how he was carried down the field by his teammates through several series during that game at Marshall?
At the same time, it's important to give Dixon some additional experience as he enters his third NFL season, and Roethlisberger's current suspension looks like the perfect opportunity for him.
The upcoming Steelers season cannot be written off already. I've heard people saying things like "When we're 1-3 when Ben comes back..." I would not make that assumption. We have two former NFL starters in Leftwich and Batch and, in Dixon, a Heisman Trophy frontrunner before his college career-ending injury. NFL teams have been in much worse situations at QB.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
