1. The Heat tied the NBA Finals at one game apiece with the Spurs who will go on to win the series and in how many games?
Spencer-
Originally I picked the Spurs in six cause I felt the revenge factor was there since the Spurs should of won in six last year, and I know the two teams match-up well. However after all the criticism and hoopla from Lebron's leg cramps in game one I reversed my pick to the Heat in seven. As Lebron proved last night he's out to show the world he's the best player in this series and he took over late and made all the right decisions to push his team to a win. He knows it's always all eyes on him and he's out to prove everyone wrong so I feel he'll do similar things throughout the series especially with it heading to Miami for two. Last year the Heat proved they could beat the veterans, this year I think they prove it wasn't a fluke.
Ty-
I'm going with the Heat in 7. These teams are evenly matched so I could see this series going either way. The one advantage that the Heat have is also the Spurs only weakness. The Heat is athletic enough to disrupt the Spurs offense. The Spurs don't really disrupt the Heat unless LeBron is out of the game. So I think that this series literally comes down to LeBron. Last year the Spurs were close to winning in 6 games because LeBron was hesitant to take and make mid range jump shots. They then lost the game 7 because LeBron was confident in his shot. If LeBron plays the way he did in game 2 then the Heat should be able to beat the Spurs and it might not even go 7. But I'm not counting out the Spurs who are hungry to avenge last year so I truly see this going 7 games again.
2. The Stanley Cup Finals has been phenomenal so far with the first two games both going into overtime and the LA Kings needing comebacks to win both games and hold a 2-0 lead over the Rangers. Who wins the series in the end and how many games does it go?
Ty-
Hockey is too fickle for me to tell you what is going to happen. Obviously Rangers fans would say that they outplayed the Kings and just broke down late in the game. Going up 2-0 should mean a lot in a final series but in hockey, especially this year it just doesn't. I still have the Kings winning but I think this series goes 7 games as well with the Ranger winning the next 2 games. I only say that because I think stealing games matter because it means a team usually has a chance to play better even though they have a series lead. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Rangers just sweep the rest of the way. It's hockey, I don't know what the hell is going to happen. That is the fun of the Stanley Cup.
Spencer-
These playoffs have been so unpredictable in general so it's hard. Several teams have come back from down 2-0 to win series so you can't rule the Rangers completely out especially because they seemed to dominate both games so far and just let the Kings back into games late. With that in mind I do think the Rangers will come back and win the series. They have two at home where they'll keep the intensity up and will have the crowd to keep them focused late with leads. Then I think they will steal one in LA and come home for a chance to close it out in game six. I also think Henrik Lundqvist's play is a key for the Rangers to win and he will play better than he did in game two where he allowed five goals. Rally time for New York!
3. Was Colin Kaepernick's new deal with the 49ers a deserving contract for the young quarterback, and what kind of precedent do these huge contracts for QBs set?
Spencer-
This is the time we're in where teams recognize the importance of a quarterback to a teams success and need to lock them in for the future with a big price tag. For as good as Kaepernick is though, it is crazy that a guy with no Super Bowl and just three years of experience is getting that kind of deal. I know he has been to the Super Bowl and the NFC Championship each year at the reigns of the offense, but is he worth the $114 Million over six years? I guess it has yet to be seen. What this does do is sets up a guy like Russell Wilson who is set for a contract extension after this season to cash in, so yes it does set the precedent that if you got a young QB that has proven he can be successful at this level you better pay him a lot of money to stay, whether he has won the Super Bowl or not cause he gives you the best chance to do it.
Ty-
This is a complicated problem and answer. I think that the nature of the NFL now a days dictates that you have to have a quarterback to have a chance to win. Agents have figured that out so now the quarterback market is outrageous because if you have a decent quarterback two things are abundantly clear. 1. Another team would happily pay that guy the crazy amount of money and 2. You don't have many other options to replace them besides the draft and hope. So technically these deals are justified because of the nature of the market but honestly the quarterback is making too much money and it makes the whole roster suffer. Teams won't have enough money to fill out the whole roster. This happened to the Ravens after signing Joe Flacco to his monster deal. Every semi-successful quarterback gets paid like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers. But most of those quarterbacks don't have the ability to make cheap contract guys better like those four QB's do. So you end up with a terrible season like the Falcons or the Ravens.So I think Kaepernick deserves the money based on his success. But I don't really think he is the type of quarterback that makes his teammates so much better that the 49ers can afford his contract.
4. With California Chrome just missing out on a the first triple crown in horse racing since 1978, do you agree with the horses owner, Steve Coburn's, original comments that it is unfair for fresh horses to run in the later races if they didn't run in the first two?
Ty-
I guess it has some merit to what he is saying. I guess logically it would make sense for a fresh horse to have a better chance in a race. But it's not like California Chrome ran 3 races in 3 days. There was time for the horse to be okay I would think. Granted that I don't have much knowledge about horses and maybe there is a sort of progressive fatigue for the horse that train and run all 3 races. But honestly this guy just has sour grapes. Nobody is obligated to run all of the races and the goal is to just win the next race available. Every other triple crown winner did it against fresh horses. Also it's supposed to be hard so he can't get mad about it being unfair because it isn't unfair it's just hard, like it's supposed to be.
Spencer-
Part of me is on Coburn's side and the other part isn't. I get that it wasn't technically a level playing field because for most of the horses that was their first race they ran in. That makes complete sense and I understand his frustration with that. However isn't that part of the beauty and challenge of the triple crown? That you ran in and won the two previous races before this and now you get to prove you're the best against fresher horses too? I think if you prove you're the best horse even given those circumstances that makes the triple crown more legitimate. But don't worry Steve I feel you and maybe we can throw an asterix up there in the book to signify California Chrome won the triple crown against the horses that ran in all three races.
5. What we learned!
Spencer: People have inhumane expectations for Lebron James
I'll be the first to admit I'm over the talking about cramps but to have my last say in the matter I just want to take a shot at America here. Look tell me all you want about him being a great athlete and how if he wants to be the best he should of been in there at the end of game one making plays for his team in a tight contest, but don't let that overshadow the fact that he is human and he is still susceptible to make mistakes and get injured. Everyone is out here saying "oh it was just cramps, suck it up and play," blah blah blah. I heard people comparing Lebron's cramps to the time they got a cramp during a high school football game and how they played through it so they're tougher than Lebron. Give me a break with that...first of all comparing a high school football game to an NBA Finals game with the arena over 90 degrees mind you is a lot different.
Regardless my main point is that we could clearly see he wasn't able to move after he made that lay up and just kind of froze. I highly doubt that he was faking it, and for all those people out there bragging about how you got a cramp and stayed in the game, you should know that a cramp doesn't just go away cause you take a minute to rest. It needs some time and hydration to subdue and stop flaring up, so by playing on it it puts Lebron at higher risk for a worse injury but even more he was going to be no help to his team hobbling around on both ends of the floor. It is easy to sit on your couch at home eating pizza and drinking a beer and say "he's not tough," "what a cry baby," "he needs to get back in the game and play through it," but we don't know the extent to which his legs were cramped and what his body was letting him do. And if you think you could deal with what he was going through then I want you to DM me on twitter next time you got a severe leg cramp and we can get a basketball game set up and see if you wanna play or not. My guess is you'd just cherry pick the whole time and hope the defense gets a stop without you.
Bottom lint is I understand holding Lebron to a higher standard because of who he is as an athlete and icon in sports. I know what he represents as the "second coming" if you will to Jordan and he has sadly always had to live under the Shadow of Jordan. Now the discussion of why they shouldn't be compared is an argument for another time but my point is that no matter who WE think he is supposed to be, at the end of the day he is who he is and he is human. He's never going to be the perfect basketball player and Jordan wasn't either mind you. He's going to get injured at times and have to sit out. What Jordan did in the flu game is obviously one of the most gutsy performances of all time by an athlete, and we as fans will always remember that. But if Lebron breaks his leg like Kevin Ware and leaves the game someones going to find a way to say "Oh well hockey players play through broken legs all the time," "Jordan played through the flu," "Why can't Lebron just give it a try?" At the end of the day because he is so polarizing he gets blamed for the bad and is praised for the good. But it's about time people see that he is the best player in the game and as a player with two championship under his belt already and a third in the works, he obviously knows what it takes to win and wants to be a legend. I for one thought the unfair criticisms would start to lose their fuel after he won one title, let alone two, but it's crazy to see how many people get fired up about a guy not being invincible, when no one is. It's about time people swallowed their pride, stop waiting to jump on him for his failures and start realize what he is accomplishing.
(Editors note: Can we both write about LeBron? No we shouldn't..... But I agree with Spencer. There is no inbetween with LeBron. He is the human version of every annoying and divisive political debate.)
Ty: The NBA Coaching Market is a Weird Thing
Not really sure that anybody could ever explain any coaching market. It's usually weird for any national sports league. The usual thing that happens is the same coaches get recycled which made he least amount of since to me. Yes those guys have experience but they usually have experience of failing. Sure the situation matters but guys like Doug Collins who has had basically the same outcome every where he goes. Doug Collins is usually bad his first year, good the second year and then his team tunes him out the third year and is bad again. There is guys like that in every sport that stay getting jobs.
The other place teams get their coaches from is assistants and college coaches. I have no problem with that sometimes these guys show promise and need a chance to assimilate to a different role or higher level of play. Sometimes those guys are former players and have earned that right through sitting behind another coach and learning how to coach. That is all fine with me but now the NBA has taken another turn that makes little sense to me.
Last year Jason Kidd wowed the New Jersey Nets and earned a contract that was 2 million dollars a year. This was because the Nets knew that this was a risk to higher a player without any coaching experience. Now Derek Fisher is set to make 5 million over 5 years based of of nothing but his playing career and his relationship with Phil Jackson. You can't really convince me that it makes sense. The Steve Kerr deal also didn't make sense.
Learning how to coach should be a little more valued. I do think that Fisher could be a great coach and so could Kerr but it is a risk to assume they will be. The contracts that they were given seems to ignore that very high risk.
Spencer-
Ty-
I'm going with the Heat in 7. These teams are evenly matched so I could see this series going either way. The one advantage that the Heat have is also the Spurs only weakness. The Heat is athletic enough to disrupt the Spurs offense. The Spurs don't really disrupt the Heat unless LeBron is out of the game. So I think that this series literally comes down to LeBron. Last year the Spurs were close to winning in 6 games because LeBron was hesitant to take and make mid range jump shots. They then lost the game 7 because LeBron was confident in his shot. If LeBron plays the way he did in game 2 then the Heat should be able to beat the Spurs and it might not even go 7. But I'm not counting out the Spurs who are hungry to avenge last year so I truly see this going 7 games again.
2. The Stanley Cup Finals has been phenomenal so far with the first two games both going into overtime and the LA Kings needing comebacks to win both games and hold a 2-0 lead over the Rangers. Who wins the series in the end and how many games does it go?
Ty-
Hockey is too fickle for me to tell you what is going to happen. Obviously Rangers fans would say that they outplayed the Kings and just broke down late in the game. Going up 2-0 should mean a lot in a final series but in hockey, especially this year it just doesn't. I still have the Kings winning but I think this series goes 7 games as well with the Ranger winning the next 2 games. I only say that because I think stealing games matter because it means a team usually has a chance to play better even though they have a series lead. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Rangers just sweep the rest of the way. It's hockey, I don't know what the hell is going to happen. That is the fun of the Stanley Cup.
Spencer-
These playoffs have been so unpredictable in general so it's hard. Several teams have come back from down 2-0 to win series so you can't rule the Rangers completely out especially because they seemed to dominate both games so far and just let the Kings back into games late. With that in mind I do think the Rangers will come back and win the series. They have two at home where they'll keep the intensity up and will have the crowd to keep them focused late with leads. Then I think they will steal one in LA and come home for a chance to close it out in game six. I also think Henrik Lundqvist's play is a key for the Rangers to win and he will play better than he did in game two where he allowed five goals. Rally time for New York! 3. Was Colin Kaepernick's new deal with the 49ers a deserving contract for the young quarterback, and what kind of precedent do these huge contracts for QBs set? Spencer-
This is the time we're in where teams recognize the importance of a quarterback to a teams success and need to lock them in for the future with a big price tag. For as good as Kaepernick is though, it is crazy that a guy with no Super Bowl and just three years of experience is getting that kind of deal. I know he has been to the Super Bowl and the NFC Championship each year at the reigns of the offense, but is he worth the $114 Million over six years? I guess it has yet to be seen. What this does do is sets up a guy like Russell Wilson who is set for a contract extension after this season to cash in, so yes it does set the precedent that if you got a young QB that has proven he can be successful at this level you better pay him a lot of money to stay, whether he has won the Super Bowl or not cause he gives you the best chance to do it.
Ty-
This is a complicated problem and answer. I think that the nature of the NFL now a days dictates that you have to have a quarterback to have a chance to win. Agents have figured that out so now the quarterback market is outrageous because if you have a decent quarterback two things are abundantly clear. 1. Another team would happily pay that guy the crazy amount of money and 2. You don't have many other options to replace them besides the draft and hope. So technically these deals are justified because of the nature of the market but honestly the quarterback is making too much money and it makes the whole roster suffer. Teams won't have enough money to fill out the whole roster. This happened to the Ravens after signing Joe Flacco to his monster deal. Every semi-successful quarterback gets paid like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers. But most of those quarterbacks don't have the ability to make cheap contract guys better like those four QB's do. So you end up with a terrible season like the Falcons or the Ravens.So I think Kaepernick deserves the money based on his success. But I don't really think he is the type of quarterback that makes his teammates so much better that the 49ers can afford his contract.
Ty-
I guess it has some merit to what he is saying. I guess logically it would make sense for a fresh horse to have a better chance in a race. But it's not like California Chrome ran 3 races in 3 days. There was time for the horse to be okay I would think. Granted that I don't have much knowledge about horses and maybe there is a sort of progressive fatigue for the horse that train and run all 3 races. But honestly this guy just has sour grapes. Nobody is obligated to run all of the races and the goal is to just win the next race available. Every other triple crown winner did it against fresh horses. Also it's supposed to be hard so he can't get mad about it being unfair because it isn't unfair it's just hard, like it's supposed to be.
Spencer-
5. What we learned!
Spencer: People have inhumane expectations for Lebron James
I'll be the first to admit I'm over the talking about cramps but to have my last say in the matter I just want to take a shot at America here. Look tell me all you want about him being a great athlete and how if he wants to be the best he should of been in there at the end of game one making plays for his team in a tight contest, but don't let that overshadow the fact that he is human and he is still susceptible to make mistakes and get injured. Everyone is out here saying "oh it was just cramps, suck it up and play," blah blah blah. I heard people comparing Lebron's cramps to the time they got a cramp during a high school football game and how they played through it so they're tougher than Lebron. Give me a break with that...first of all comparing a high school football game to an NBA Finals game with the arena over 90 degrees mind you is a lot different.
Regardless my main point is that we could clearly see he wasn't able to move after he made that lay up and just kind of froze. I highly doubt that he was faking it, and for all those people out there bragging about how you got a cramp and stayed in the game, you should know that a cramp doesn't just go away cause you take a minute to rest. It needs some time and hydration to subdue and stop flaring up, so by playing on it it puts Lebron at higher risk for a worse injury but even more he was going to be no help to his team hobbling around on both ends of the floor. It is easy to sit on your couch at home eating pizza and drinking a beer and say "he's not tough," "what a cry baby," "he needs to get back in the game and play through it," but we don't know the extent to which his legs were cramped and what his body was letting him do. And if you think you could deal with what he was going through then I want you to DM me on twitter next time you got a severe leg cramp and we can get a basketball game set up and see if you wanna play or not. My guess is you'd just cherry pick the whole time and hope the defense gets a stop without you.
Bottom lint is I understand holding Lebron to a higher standard because of who he is as an athlete and icon in sports. I know what he represents as the "second coming" if you will to Jordan and he has sadly always had to live under the Shadow of Jordan. Now the discussion of why they shouldn't be compared is an argument for another time but my point is that no matter who WE think he is supposed to be, at the end of the day he is who he is and he is human. He's never going to be the perfect basketball player and Jordan wasn't either mind you. He's going to get injured at times and have to sit out. What Jordan did in the flu game is obviously one of the most gutsy performances of all time by an athlete, and we as fans will always remember that. But if Lebron breaks his leg like Kevin Ware and leaves the game someones going to find a way to say "Oh well hockey players play through broken legs all the time," "Jordan played through the flu," "Why can't Lebron just give it a try?" At the end of the day because he is so polarizing he gets blamed for the bad and is praised for the good. But it's about time people see that he is the best player in the game and as a player with two championship under his belt already and a third in the works, he obviously knows what it takes to win and wants to be a legend. I for one thought the unfair criticisms would start to lose their fuel after he won one title, let alone two, but it's crazy to see how many people get fired up about a guy not being invincible, when no one is. It's about time people swallowed their pride, stop waiting to jump on him for his failures and start realize what he is accomplishing.
(Editors note: Can we both write about LeBron? No we shouldn't..... But I agree with Spencer. There is no inbetween with LeBron. He is the human version of every annoying and divisive political debate.)
Not really sure that anybody could ever explain any coaching market. It's usually weird for any national sports league. The usual thing that happens is the same coaches get recycled which made he least amount of since to me. Yes those guys have experience but they usually have experience of failing. Sure the situation matters but guys like Doug Collins who has had basically the same outcome every where he goes. Doug Collins is usually bad his first year, good the second year and then his team tunes him out the third year and is bad again. There is guys like that in every sport that stay getting jobs.
The other place teams get their coaches from is assistants and college coaches. I have no problem with that sometimes these guys show promise and need a chance to assimilate to a different role or higher level of play. Sometimes those guys are former players and have earned that right through sitting behind another coach and learning how to coach. That is all fine with me but now the NBA has taken another turn that makes little sense to me.
Last year Jason Kidd wowed the New Jersey Nets and earned a contract that was 2 million dollars a year. This was because the Nets knew that this was a risk to higher a player without any coaching experience. Now Derek Fisher is set to make 5 million over 5 years based of of nothing but his playing career and his relationship with Phil Jackson. You can't really convince me that it makes sense. The Steve Kerr deal also didn't make sense.
Learning how to coach should be a little more valued. I do think that Fisher could be a great coach and so could Kerr but it is a risk to assume they will be. The contracts that they were given seems to ignore that very high risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment