On the same night that Florida State took down No. 1 Duke, a feat that Maryland came close to pulling off Sunday night, the Terps earned their first ACC win in three tries, beating Wake Forest 74-55.
In what was an ugly win over an awful team (at least it was on the road!), the Terps took a 14-point lead at halftime but had to weather a bit of a Wake Forest comeback in the second half. Wake pulled to within six points with about 11 minutes to go before Maryland went on an impressive run to push the lead to 21 just a few minutes later. Wake never recovered, and all that was left was about four to five minutes of sloppy basketball.
There's not a whole lot that can be taken away from this game other than the Terps' offense needs a lot of work, but here are a few notes/observations:
- Jordan Williams had his worst shooting night of the season -- 2-13 from the field -- and yet he still put up 13 points and 15 rebounds. Most of his points came from the free throw line, where he made 9-14 shots -- not bad for a guy shooting about 50 percent from the line on the season.
- Wake Forest's zone defense made things difficult for Maryland. Because the Terps don't have any great three-point shooters, other than the hot-and-cold Cliff Tucker, Wake was content to clog the paint and force Maryland to hit some outside shots. The Terps made just five of 18 threes and Williams didn't have much room to operate inside, so in a sense that strategy worked. Maryland seemed to make the adjustment to push the ball up the court more in the second half so that Wake couldn't get their defense set. Because the Terps missed plenty of open perimeter shots in this game, I wouldn't be surprised to see other better, more athletic teams play a zone defense against Maryland to try to take Williams out of the game.
- Similar to the above note, the Terps simply have to make more perimeter shots. They didn't seem all that comfortable operating against a zone defense, but they still got plenty of open looks that they just didn't knock down. Their flex offense is particularly effective against man-to-man defense, but they still ran it several times against Wake's zone -- and still got open shots. Gary Williams will always get his team open looks -- but he can't make shots for them.
- In games when the Terps shoot 38 percent from the field and under 28 percent from three-point range, they're likely going to need to make free throws. Luckily they were playing Wake Forest, so they got away with making just 17 of 33 free throws (51.5 percent). As noted, Williams shot much better from the line, meaning that the worst free throw shooter on the team has to be James Padgett, right? Williams and Padgett are both shooting about 50 percent on the season, but Padgett missed all four of his free throws last night. He also aired one of them so bad that it couldn't have been within two or three feet of the basket.
- It's pretty clear now that the Terps are going to need more scoring efforts like last night's from Tucker (21 points, 6-13 shooting). Terrell Stoglin and Pe'Shon Howard have some talent, no question, but they have struggled a bit lately to put up points -- particularly Stoglin. Stoglin made just one of nine shots yesterday and had only two points. In ACC games so far, Stoglin is shooting a combined 8-36 from the field. That's not going to get it done.
- Haukur Palsson had a nice game (four points, five rebounds, two assists) in 20 minutes. He's seen his minutes increase in the last few games.
I guess that's about it -- still a nice win, no matter what. Next on the Terps' schedule is No. 7 Villanova -- on the road. Winning that game, or beating Duke at home on February 2, would go a long way to getting the Terps back on the NCAA Tournament path. It's still early, but beating a top team like that would do wonders for these young Terps.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Seven points, 13 seconds
I realize that the Wizards (10-26) are a really bad team. I also recognize that they did, in fact, win the game last night -- 136-133, in overtime, over the Kings. Nick Young also scored a career-high 43 points, which is great -- more on that below. But at some point, even the worst teams should be able to execute basic plays at the end of games. The Wizards, frankly, did not, and that's why the Kings forced overtime in the first place.
Let's go back to the last 13 seconds of regulation. After a Young turnover gave the ball back to the Kings, Jermaine Taylor grabbed an offensive rebound and dunked the ball to cut the lead to 125-121. Rashard Lewis desperately tried to find a teammate on the inbounds pass and forced the ball to Kirk Hinrich (under the basket) instead of calling a timeout. Beno Udrih stole the ball, which eventually ended up in the hands of Francisco Garcia, who not only made the layup, but was also fouled on the play. He made the free throw.
Now leading by just one, the Wizards got the ball to Young, who was fouled. At the free throw line, he made the first and missed the second. With seven seconds left, the score was 126-124. What happened next was absolutely indefensible: Pooh Jeter -- who the Wizards somehow allowed to score eight points and dish out 11 assists in 21 minutes -- drove right past John Wall for the game-tying layup. Wall was beaten badly on the play -- it happens, I guess -- but no one was behind him to alter Jeter's shot or even make him think about passing the ball. The lane was so wide open that it looked like the Kings were still in their pre-game layup lines. Not only did Jeter's shot tie the game at 126, but the play only took four seconds. It took just four seconds for the Kings to get a wide open layup. The Wizards obviously seemed concerned with giving up a go-ahead three-pointer, but there's no excuse for defense that poorly. None.
With three seconds left, Wall missed the game-winning bucket on the other end, and the game went to overtime. (Since the Kings didn't have the ball for the final three seconds, I guess it's actually seven points in 10 seconds, but I'll leave the title alone. It sounds bad enough as it is.) Thanks to Young and Hinrich, who combined for nine of the team's 10 points in overtime, the Wizards still pulled out the victory, which should be applauded considering the monumental collapse at the end of regulation. But they're not getting off that easy. There was very little defense played in yesterday's game from either team, but the defense displayed by the Wizards in the fourth quarter was absolutely atrocious. Not only did they fall apart in the fourth quarter's final seconds, but they allowed 43 points in that quarter alone. Forty-three points! In Friday's win over the Nets, the Wizards didn't allow 43 total points until the third quarter. I know: The Nets are terrible and that's a completely different game -- plus the Nets were chucking up bricks left and right -- but where is the consistent effort on defense? The Kings were getting buckets way too easy; at times it looked like the Wizards weren't even trying.
I don't think it's just Flip Saunders's fault. It's not just the players' fault. And it's not just the assistant coaches' fault. It's everyone's fault. Performances like that make me wonder why teams don't force more pressure on opposing teams more often. I know every team won't fold under pressure and throw the ball away like the Wizards did, but some might.
There's no excuse for the level of defense the Wizards played for much of the game -- obviously in the fourth quarter -- and that's not even counting the fact that the Kings were playing without their best player, Tyreke Evans. Here were the high scorers for the Kings last night: Udrih (26), Garcia (26), Carl Landry (23), Omri Casspi (15), and DeMarcus Cousins (10). There were no Kobes or LeBrons, or Amare Stoudemires or Kevin Durants, etc., on the floor last night, and again, Evans was out.
Now, for the positives. Young had an outstanding game (on offense). He had 43 points on just 22 shots, making 14 of them. He also shot a phenomenal 7-10 from three-point range. Here's a breakdown of his production by quarter: 14 in the first, three in the second, 18 in the third, five in the fourth, and three in overtime.
As a team, the Wizards outrebounded the Kings by 15 (55-40). Three Wizards grabbed at least 10 rebounds -- Andray Blatche (13), JaVale McGee (11), and Rashard Lewis (10). Lewis also had a decent game, scoring 16 points on 11 shots and dishing out six assists. Blatche had 16 points (5-10 from the field), four assists, and four steals. Wall didn't have a very efficient game, pouring in 22 points on just 6-19 shooting. He committed six turnovers, though he had nine assists and six rebounds. He also made all 10 of his free throws.
Off the bench, Hinrich scored 14 big points, all of them coming in the fourth quarter and overtime. He needed only nine shots to get those 14 and also had four rebounds and four assists. In 12 minutes, Al Thornton chipped in nine points on 4-5 shooting.
Let's go back to the last 13 seconds of regulation. After a Young turnover gave the ball back to the Kings, Jermaine Taylor grabbed an offensive rebound and dunked the ball to cut the lead to 125-121. Rashard Lewis desperately tried to find a teammate on the inbounds pass and forced the ball to Kirk Hinrich (under the basket) instead of calling a timeout. Beno Udrih stole the ball, which eventually ended up in the hands of Francisco Garcia, who not only made the layup, but was also fouled on the play. He made the free throw.
Now leading by just one, the Wizards got the ball to Young, who was fouled. At the free throw line, he made the first and missed the second. With seven seconds left, the score was 126-124. What happened next was absolutely indefensible: Pooh Jeter -- who the Wizards somehow allowed to score eight points and dish out 11 assists in 21 minutes -- drove right past John Wall for the game-tying layup. Wall was beaten badly on the play -- it happens, I guess -- but no one was behind him to alter Jeter's shot or even make him think about passing the ball. The lane was so wide open that it looked like the Kings were still in their pre-game layup lines. Not only did Jeter's shot tie the game at 126, but the play only took four seconds. It took just four seconds for the Kings to get a wide open layup. The Wizards obviously seemed concerned with giving up a go-ahead three-pointer, but there's no excuse for defense that poorly. None.
With three seconds left, Wall missed the game-winning bucket on the other end, and the game went to overtime. (Since the Kings didn't have the ball for the final three seconds, I guess it's actually seven points in 10 seconds, but I'll leave the title alone. It sounds bad enough as it is.) Thanks to Young and Hinrich, who combined for nine of the team's 10 points in overtime, the Wizards still pulled out the victory, which should be applauded considering the monumental collapse at the end of regulation. But they're not getting off that easy. There was very little defense played in yesterday's game from either team, but the defense displayed by the Wizards in the fourth quarter was absolutely atrocious. Not only did they fall apart in the fourth quarter's final seconds, but they allowed 43 points in that quarter alone. Forty-three points! In Friday's win over the Nets, the Wizards didn't allow 43 total points until the third quarter. I know: The Nets are terrible and that's a completely different game -- plus the Nets were chucking up bricks left and right -- but where is the consistent effort on defense? The Kings were getting buckets way too easy; at times it looked like the Wizards weren't even trying.
I don't think it's just Flip Saunders's fault. It's not just the players' fault. And it's not just the assistant coaches' fault. It's everyone's fault. Performances like that make me wonder why teams don't force more pressure on opposing teams more often. I know every team won't fold under pressure and throw the ball away like the Wizards did, but some might.
There's no excuse for the level of defense the Wizards played for much of the game -- obviously in the fourth quarter -- and that's not even counting the fact that the Kings were playing without their best player, Tyreke Evans. Here were the high scorers for the Kings last night: Udrih (26), Garcia (26), Carl Landry (23), Omri Casspi (15), and DeMarcus Cousins (10). There were no Kobes or LeBrons, or Amare Stoudemires or Kevin Durants, etc., on the floor last night, and again, Evans was out.
Now, for the positives. Young had an outstanding game (on offense). He had 43 points on just 22 shots, making 14 of them. He also shot a phenomenal 7-10 from three-point range. Here's a breakdown of his production by quarter: 14 in the first, three in the second, 18 in the third, five in the fourth, and three in overtime.
As a team, the Wizards outrebounded the Kings by 15 (55-40). Three Wizards grabbed at least 10 rebounds -- Andray Blatche (13), JaVale McGee (11), and Rashard Lewis (10). Lewis also had a decent game, scoring 16 points on 11 shots and dishing out six assists. Blatche had 16 points (5-10 from the field), four assists, and four steals. Wall didn't have a very efficient game, pouring in 22 points on just 6-19 shooting. He committed six turnovers, though he had nine assists and six rebounds. He also made all 10 of his free throws.
Off the bench, Hinrich scored 14 big points, all of them coming in the fourth quarter and overtime. He needed only nine shots to get those 14 and also had four rebounds and four assists. In 12 minutes, Al Thornton chipped in nine points on 4-5 shooting.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
NFL playoff picks: Wild-card round (Sunday)
Wow, what a great way to begin the NFL playoffs. First the Seahawks shocked the Saints, 41-36, in a high-scoring, exciting game, and then the Jets survived a last-minute field goal by Adam Vinatieri and won on a last-second field goal of their own (by Nick Folk) to get a 17-16 win over the Colts. Today's games probably can't top those two, but they should still be entertaining.
I sided with the Saints and Jets, so I went 1-1 with my first two playoff picks. Here are my next two (which won't be as in-depth).
CHIEFS (+3.5) over Ravens
Did you know that the Chiefs (10-6) are 7-1 at home this season? They only beat one team above .500 (the 9-7 Chargers), but that's rather impressive. Still, they didn't face a lot of great teams this season; it's not a knock on them, it's just a fact. The 12-4 Ravens, on the other hand, played a much tougher schedule that included games against the Jets, Patriots, Falcons, Saints, Buccaneers, and Steelers (twice). They seem like the much more battle-tested team, but they'll still have their hands full with the resurgent Chiefs, especially in Kansas City.
On offense, the two teams are pretty similar: The Chiefs score 22.9 points per game, and the Ravens score 22.3 points per game. Defensively, the Ravens are better, allowing 16.9 points per game, while the Chiefs give up 20.4 points per game.
Matchup to watch: Chiefs rushing attack vs. Ravens rush defense. The Chiefs rush for an NFL-best 164.2 yards per game; the fifth-ranked Ravens rush defense allows 93.9 yards per game. Something has to give.
It's worth noting that Joe Flacco (93.6) and Matt Cassel (93.0) were ranked Nos. 7 and 8, respectively, in quarterback rating this season. Cassel had two more touchdowns and three fewer interceptions, but Flacco threw for more yards (3,622-3,116).
I think the Ravens have a great shot at winning this game; they are favored, after all. But the Chiefs do have the advantage of being home, which actually means something at Arrowhead Stadium. I think the Ravens will win, but it'll be a close game. I wouldn't be all that surprised to see this game turn out to be like the Jets-Colts game.
EAGLES (-3) over Packers
Aaron Rodgers is an outstanding quarterback. This season, he had the third-best quarterback rating (101.2), which was just behind Tom Brady and Philip Rivers. If given time, he has the ability to pick apart just about any defense. Unfortunately, similar to Peyton Manning, his team's offense rests mostly on his arm. The Packers just are not very good at running the ball -- they average just over 100 yards per game on the ground. Although the Eagles aren't that great at stopping the run (110.4 yards per game -- 15th best), they should be able to focus on Rodgers instead of being forced to keep a ton of defenders in the box.
The Eagles do scare me a bit, though. After their enormous come-from-behind victory over the Giants in Week 15, they fell flat and lost to the Vikings in Week 16 before resting some players and basically conceding defeat to the Cowboys in the season's final week. Did they pack things up a little early to gear up for the playoffs? Will some of that rust prove costly against the Packers?
I don't think so. The Packers defense is solid, allowing only 15 points per game, but with Michael Vick, LeSean McCoy, DeSean Jackson, and Jeremy Maclin, the Eagles can put plenty of points on the board against any defense. The real key, to me, is going to be Rodgers against the Eagles defense. He's going to be under pressure, and just a few mistakes could prove costly.
The lack of a run game will hurt the Packers dearly, and the Eagles will win this game by at least a touchdown.
Regular season: 114-136-6
Playoffs: 1-1
Overall: 115-137-6
I sided with the Saints and Jets, so I went 1-1 with my first two playoff picks. Here are my next two (which won't be as in-depth).
CHIEFS (+3.5) over Ravens
Did you know that the Chiefs (10-6) are 7-1 at home this season? They only beat one team above .500 (the 9-7 Chargers), but that's rather impressive. Still, they didn't face a lot of great teams this season; it's not a knock on them, it's just a fact. The 12-4 Ravens, on the other hand, played a much tougher schedule that included games against the Jets, Patriots, Falcons, Saints, Buccaneers, and Steelers (twice). They seem like the much more battle-tested team, but they'll still have their hands full with the resurgent Chiefs, especially in Kansas City.
On offense, the two teams are pretty similar: The Chiefs score 22.9 points per game, and the Ravens score 22.3 points per game. Defensively, the Ravens are better, allowing 16.9 points per game, while the Chiefs give up 20.4 points per game.
Matchup to watch: Chiefs rushing attack vs. Ravens rush defense. The Chiefs rush for an NFL-best 164.2 yards per game; the fifth-ranked Ravens rush defense allows 93.9 yards per game. Something has to give.
It's worth noting that Joe Flacco (93.6) and Matt Cassel (93.0) were ranked Nos. 7 and 8, respectively, in quarterback rating this season. Cassel had two more touchdowns and three fewer interceptions, but Flacco threw for more yards (3,622-3,116).
I think the Ravens have a great shot at winning this game; they are favored, after all. But the Chiefs do have the advantage of being home, which actually means something at Arrowhead Stadium. I think the Ravens will win, but it'll be a close game. I wouldn't be all that surprised to see this game turn out to be like the Jets-Colts game.
EAGLES (-3) over Packers
Aaron Rodgers is an outstanding quarterback. This season, he had the third-best quarterback rating (101.2), which was just behind Tom Brady and Philip Rivers. If given time, he has the ability to pick apart just about any defense. Unfortunately, similar to Peyton Manning, his team's offense rests mostly on his arm. The Packers just are not very good at running the ball -- they average just over 100 yards per game on the ground. Although the Eagles aren't that great at stopping the run (110.4 yards per game -- 15th best), they should be able to focus on Rodgers instead of being forced to keep a ton of defenders in the box.
The Eagles do scare me a bit, though. After their enormous come-from-behind victory over the Giants in Week 15, they fell flat and lost to the Vikings in Week 16 before resting some players and basically conceding defeat to the Cowboys in the season's final week. Did they pack things up a little early to gear up for the playoffs? Will some of that rust prove costly against the Packers?
I don't think so. The Packers defense is solid, allowing only 15 points per game, but with Michael Vick, LeSean McCoy, DeSean Jackson, and Jeremy Maclin, the Eagles can put plenty of points on the board against any defense. The real key, to me, is going to be Rodgers against the Eagles defense. He's going to be under pressure, and just a few mistakes could prove costly.
The lack of a run game will hurt the Packers dearly, and the Eagles will win this game by at least a touchdown.
Regular season: 114-136-6
Playoffs: 1-1
Overall: 115-137-6
Saturday, January 8, 2011
NFL playoff picks: Wild-card round (Saturday)
Just a terrible job during the regular season picking games. So much for the moral victory of getting back to .500. But it's playoff time now, which means it's time to focus -- or something like that.
Saints (-11) over SEAHAWKS
The Saints (11-5) recently placed Pierre Thomas and Chris Ivory on injured reserve, leaving them one injury away (to the already injury-prone Reggie Bush) from giving the bulk of their carries to Julius Jones. Safety Malcom Jenkins and tight end Jimmy Graham, who were both injured last week against the Buccaneers, are also expected to miss the game. And yet, despite the Saints' injuries, I have absolutely no confidence in the Seahawks.
You probably already know that the Seahawks recently became the first under-.500 team (at 7-9) to make the playoffs. They were also outscored by 97 points this season and were blown out in each of their nine losses. In fact, their smallest margin of defeat in those nine losses was 15 points, which, interestingly enough, came against the Saints (at New Orleans) in Week 11.
The main two reasons to possibly side with the Seahawks are 1) the Saints' injuries, mentioned above, and 2) that Seattle can be a difficult place to play. The Seahawks finished with a 2-6 record on the road but had a 5-3 home record. So who did they beat at home? The 49ers (6-10), Chargers (9-7), Cardinals (5-11), Panthers (2-14), and Rams (7-9). And who beat them? The Giants (10-6), Chiefs (10-6), and Falcons (13-3). So besides that Chargers win, the Seahawks beat a bunch of bad-to-mediocre teams at home and lost to the good teams. So much for that enormous home-field advantage.
Really, the only thing holding the Saints back in this game will be themselves. And despite the injuries, they should still roll.
Jets (+3) over COLTS
The Colts (10-6) closed out the regular season by winning four straight games, and yet none of those games came over a team above .500. The Jets (11-5), meanwhile, ended the season on a bit of a roller coaster, winning four straight from Week 9 to Week 12, losing two ugly games to the Patriots and Dolphins, somehow beating the Steelers on the road, losing a shootout in Chicago to the Bears, and then blowing out the Bills at home.
So how do these two teams stack up?
Offense: The Colts have the fourth-ranked scoring offense (27.2 points per game) despite rushing for the fourth-worst yards per game (92.7). With an average, or slightly above-average, offensive line, that's a lot of pressure on Peyton Manning to put points on the board. (Unsurprisingly, the Colts throw for the most yards per game (288.1).) The Jets score the 13th-most points per game (22.9) and have the fourth-ranked rushing attack -- 148.4 yards per game. Mark Sanchez can make some solid plays at times, but with a 75.3 quarterback rating, he may be handing the ball off a lot unless the Jets get down by a few scores.
Defense: The Jets only give up 19 points per game (sixth best), while the Colts allow 24.3 points per game (23rd best). The Jets also forced four more turnovers than the Colts (24-20). In terms of sacks, the Jets had 10 more than the Colts (40-30), but because Manning is so quick with the ball, the Colts only took 16 sacks. The Jets allowed 28.
Special teams: The Jets averaged the third-best kickoff return yardage per attempt (25.2) and returned two kickoffs for touchdowns (both by Brad Smith). The Colts returned one kick for a touchdown (by Tyjuan Hagler on an onside kick), but they only averaged 19.6 yards per return (29th). On punt returns, neither team had a return touchdown; the Jets averaged 9.6 yards per return, and the Colts averaged 6.9 yards per return.
If Manning has a huge game, the Colts will probably win. And if he's under pressure all game and throws a few interceptions, the Jets will likely win. It will be hard for the Colts to run the ball against the Jets, but they should be able to block long enough to give Manning time for much of the game. Still, I don't think either team is that much better than the other, and this is the type of game that could come down to a late field goal. I don't want to side with Sanchez on the road, but he also is working with the better rushing attack and the better offensive line. Manning doesn't have that advantage. I'm going with the Jets.
Last week: 5-11
Regular season: 114-136-6
Saints (-11) over SEAHAWKS
The Saints (11-5) recently placed Pierre Thomas and Chris Ivory on injured reserve, leaving them one injury away (to the already injury-prone Reggie Bush) from giving the bulk of their carries to Julius Jones. Safety Malcom Jenkins and tight end Jimmy Graham, who were both injured last week against the Buccaneers, are also expected to miss the game. And yet, despite the Saints' injuries, I have absolutely no confidence in the Seahawks.
You probably already know that the Seahawks recently became the first under-.500 team (at 7-9) to make the playoffs. They were also outscored by 97 points this season and were blown out in each of their nine losses. In fact, their smallest margin of defeat in those nine losses was 15 points, which, interestingly enough, came against the Saints (at New Orleans) in Week 11.
The main two reasons to possibly side with the Seahawks are 1) the Saints' injuries, mentioned above, and 2) that Seattle can be a difficult place to play. The Seahawks finished with a 2-6 record on the road but had a 5-3 home record. So who did they beat at home? The 49ers (6-10), Chargers (9-7), Cardinals (5-11), Panthers (2-14), and Rams (7-9). And who beat them? The Giants (10-6), Chiefs (10-6), and Falcons (13-3). So besides that Chargers win, the Seahawks beat a bunch of bad-to-mediocre teams at home and lost to the good teams. So much for that enormous home-field advantage.
Really, the only thing holding the Saints back in this game will be themselves. And despite the injuries, they should still roll.
Jets (+3) over COLTS
The Colts (10-6) closed out the regular season by winning four straight games, and yet none of those games came over a team above .500. The Jets (11-5), meanwhile, ended the season on a bit of a roller coaster, winning four straight from Week 9 to Week 12, losing two ugly games to the Patriots and Dolphins, somehow beating the Steelers on the road, losing a shootout in Chicago to the Bears, and then blowing out the Bills at home.
So how do these two teams stack up?
Offense: The Colts have the fourth-ranked scoring offense (27.2 points per game) despite rushing for the fourth-worst yards per game (92.7). With an average, or slightly above-average, offensive line, that's a lot of pressure on Peyton Manning to put points on the board. (Unsurprisingly, the Colts throw for the most yards per game (288.1).) The Jets score the 13th-most points per game (22.9) and have the fourth-ranked rushing attack -- 148.4 yards per game. Mark Sanchez can make some solid plays at times, but with a 75.3 quarterback rating, he may be handing the ball off a lot unless the Jets get down by a few scores.
Defense: The Jets only give up 19 points per game (sixth best), while the Colts allow 24.3 points per game (23rd best). The Jets also forced four more turnovers than the Colts (24-20). In terms of sacks, the Jets had 10 more than the Colts (40-30), but because Manning is so quick with the ball, the Colts only took 16 sacks. The Jets allowed 28.
Special teams: The Jets averaged the third-best kickoff return yardage per attempt (25.2) and returned two kickoffs for touchdowns (both by Brad Smith). The Colts returned one kick for a touchdown (by Tyjuan Hagler on an onside kick), but they only averaged 19.6 yards per return (29th). On punt returns, neither team had a return touchdown; the Jets averaged 9.6 yards per return, and the Colts averaged 6.9 yards per return.
If Manning has a huge game, the Colts will probably win. And if he's under pressure all game and throws a few interceptions, the Jets will likely win. It will be hard for the Colts to run the ball against the Jets, but they should be able to block long enough to give Manning time for much of the game. Still, I don't think either team is that much better than the other, and this is the type of game that could come down to a late field goal. I don't want to side with Sanchez on the road, but he also is working with the better rushing attack and the better offensive line. Manning doesn't have that advantage. I'm going with the Jets.
Last week: 5-11
Regular season: 114-136-6
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Gregg joins O's bullpen
On the heels of signing Derrek Lee, the Orioles have agreed to terms with reliever Kevin Gregg on a two-year deal. According to Jeff Zrebiec of The Baltimore Sun (via Orioles Insider), Gregg's deal is worth $10 million and "also includes a club option for 2013 that could vest if Gregg is able to finish a certain number of games during the 2012 season."
Although signing Gregg makes more sense than a Type A free agent like Grant Balfour -- Gregg has Type B status, meaning the O's don't have to surrender a draft pick -- the move continues a puzzling trend of giving mediocre relievers multi-year contracts. Just last year the O's gave Mike Gonzalez a two-year, $12 million deal; even worse, he was a Type A free agent. Gonzalez seemed to right the ship as the 2010 season went along and he got healthier, but there's no chance that he lives up to his contract. The same can probably be said of Gregg.
Doesn't the O's front office remember what happened in the winter of 2006? Sure, Andy MacPhail wasn't with the O's yet and some, if not most, of the front office personnel is different now, but the valuable lesson(s) learned from that disastrous offseason should not be forgotten. That offseason, Mike Flanagan and Jim Duquette handed out a combined $41.5 million to Danys Baez (three years, $19 million), Chad Bradford (three years, $10.5 million), and Jamie Walker (three years, $12 million). According to FanGraphs, here's the total wins above replacement each was worth in his time in Baltimore:
Baez: -0.4 WAR (2007: -0.8 WAR; 2009: 0.4 WAR; missed 2008 with injury)
Bradford: 1.6 WAR (1.3 WAR in 2007; 0.6 combined WAR in 2008 with O's and Rays, after a trade)
Walker: -0.5 WAR (2007: 0.7 WAR; 2008: -0.9 WAR; 2009: -0.3 WAR)
For all of that money handed out to hopefully shore up the bullpen, the O's received a combined 0.7 WAR -- not even a full win. The Baez-Bradford-Walker debacle should have taught the O's how not to build a bullpen. Granted, the Gonzalez and Gregg deals are not three-year deals and may not hamstring the O's much from making other moves, if necessary, but it's hard to understand why they'd want to overpay relievers when guys like George Sherrill, Mark Hendrickson, and Will Ohman have been at least relatively effective, cheap bullpen additions in the past couple years. Maybe it's because MacPhail values closing experience and doesn't mind targeting relievers who have piled up saves in the past. Gonzalez had 54 career saves before coming to Baltimore; Gregg has 122. (For what it's worth, Koji Uehara received a two-year, $10 million deal before the 2009 season, but he was signed to be a starter and did start before eventually moving to the bullpen amid injury concerns. He's also been effective in Baltimore, posting a 1.7 WAR in 2009 and a 1.4 WAR in 2010.)
Dave Cameron said it best in a December 2010 post, "Relievers Are Not Worth Multi-Year Deals" (which is certainly worth reading). I don't think MacPhail and the O's have learned that lesson quite yet, but at least they haven't started handing out three-year deals to relievers again.
Although signing Gregg makes more sense than a Type A free agent like Grant Balfour -- Gregg has Type B status, meaning the O's don't have to surrender a draft pick -- the move continues a puzzling trend of giving mediocre relievers multi-year contracts. Just last year the O's gave Mike Gonzalez a two-year, $12 million deal; even worse, he was a Type A free agent. Gonzalez seemed to right the ship as the 2010 season went along and he got healthier, but there's no chance that he lives up to his contract. The same can probably be said of Gregg.
Doesn't the O's front office remember what happened in the winter of 2006? Sure, Andy MacPhail wasn't with the O's yet and some, if not most, of the front office personnel is different now, but the valuable lesson(s) learned from that disastrous offseason should not be forgotten. That offseason, Mike Flanagan and Jim Duquette handed out a combined $41.5 million to Danys Baez (three years, $19 million), Chad Bradford (three years, $10.5 million), and Jamie Walker (three years, $12 million). According to FanGraphs, here's the total wins above replacement each was worth in his time in Baltimore:
Baez: -0.4 WAR (2007: -0.8 WAR; 2009: 0.4 WAR; missed 2008 with injury)
Bradford: 1.6 WAR (1.3 WAR in 2007; 0.6 combined WAR in 2008 with O's and Rays, after a trade)
Walker: -0.5 WAR (2007: 0.7 WAR; 2008: -0.9 WAR; 2009: -0.3 WAR)
For all of that money handed out to hopefully shore up the bullpen, the O's received a combined 0.7 WAR -- not even a full win. The Baez-Bradford-Walker debacle should have taught the O's how not to build a bullpen. Granted, the Gonzalez and Gregg deals are not three-year deals and may not hamstring the O's much from making other moves, if necessary, but it's hard to understand why they'd want to overpay relievers when guys like George Sherrill, Mark Hendrickson, and Will Ohman have been at least relatively effective, cheap bullpen additions in the past couple years. Maybe it's because MacPhail values closing experience and doesn't mind targeting relievers who have piled up saves in the past. Gonzalez had 54 career saves before coming to Baltimore; Gregg has 122. (For what it's worth, Koji Uehara received a two-year, $10 million deal before the 2009 season, but he was signed to be a starter and did start before eventually moving to the bullpen amid injury concerns. He's also been effective in Baltimore, posting a 1.7 WAR in 2009 and a 1.4 WAR in 2010.)
Dave Cameron said it best in a December 2010 post, "Relievers Are Not Worth Multi-Year Deals" (which is certainly worth reading). I don't think MacPhail and the O's have learned that lesson quite yet, but at least they haven't started handing out three-year deals to relievers again.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
With Lee on board, O's infield makeover is complete
When the Orioles signed Derrek Lee to a one-year deal worth about $8-$10 million, they fortified the right side of the infield (along with Brian Roberts) and completed an obvious offseason goal of improving the entire infield. Along with signing Lee, the O's traded for Mark Reynolds to fill the hole at third base, acquired shortstop J.J. Hardy from the Twins (and infielder Brendan Harris), and re-signed Cesar Izturis to fill a utility role.
With all of those guys on board, the O's will likely have an Opening Day infield that looks like this:
C: Matt Wieters
1B: Derrek Lee
2B: Brian Roberts
SS: J.J. Hardy
3B: Mark Reynolds
Not too shabby. And when comparing that to last year's Opening Day infield arrangement, it looks even better:
C: Matt Wieters
1B: Garrett Atkins
2B: Brian Roberts
SS: Cesar Izturis
3B: Miguel Tejada
2011's infield is clearly better, but let's examine the offensive abilities of the two (excluding Wieters and Roberts, since their presence doesn't change):
There is only one place where a player in the first table outperforms someone in the second table: Tejada's career on-base percentage is five points higher than Reynolds's OBP. That's it. Lee, Hardy, and Reynolds are clearly better offensively across the board, and they're all, at the very least, minor defensive upgrades at their respective positions as well. Also, Lee, Hardy, and Reynolds have an average age of 30, while Atkins, Izturis, and Tejada had an average age of about 31-32, so the O's got a little younger while also strengthening three positions.
It would be hard to classify any of the moves as long-term solutions, and Reynolds may end up as the only one still in Baltimore after the 2011 season. Still, the moves make the O's better, and because the O's don't have a bunch of infield prospects knocking on the door to the big leagues, they're not blocking any almost-ready minor leaguers either. It's hard to ask for more than that.
With all of those guys on board, the O's will likely have an Opening Day infield that looks like this:
C: Matt Wieters
1B: Derrek Lee
2B: Brian Roberts
SS: J.J. Hardy
3B: Mark Reynolds
Not too shabby. And when comparing that to last year's Opening Day infield arrangement, it looks even better:
C: Matt Wieters
1B: Garrett Atkins
2B: Brian Roberts
SS: Cesar Izturis
3B: Miguel Tejada
2011's infield is clearly better, but let's examine the offensive abilities of the two (excluding Wieters and Roberts, since their presence doesn't change):
| Player | 2010 OBP | Career OBP | 2010 SLG | Career SLG |
| Atkins | .276 | .350 | .286 | .449 |
| Izturis | .277 | .296 | .268 | .323 |
| Tejada | .312 | .339 | .381 | .462 |
| Player | 2010 OBP | Career OBP | 2010 SLG | Career SLG |
| Lee | .347 | .367 | .428 | .498 |
Hardy | .320 | .323 | .394 | .423 |
Reynolds | .320 | .334 | .433 | .483 |
There is only one place where a player in the first table outperforms someone in the second table: Tejada's career on-base percentage is five points higher than Reynolds's OBP. That's it. Lee, Hardy, and Reynolds are clearly better offensively across the board, and they're all, at the very least, minor defensive upgrades at their respective positions as well. Also, Lee, Hardy, and Reynolds have an average age of 30, while Atkins, Izturis, and Tejada had an average age of about 31-32, so the O's got a little younger while also strengthening three positions.
It would be hard to classify any of the moves as long-term solutions, and Reynolds may end up as the only one still in Baltimore after the 2011 season. Still, the moves make the O's better, and because the O's don't have a bunch of infield prospects knocking on the door to the big leagues, they're not blocking any almost-ready minor leaguers either. It's hard to ask for more than that.
Monday, January 3, 2011
What did the Shanahans learn about Rex Grossman?
In his three starts this season, coming in an apparent audition for either the starting job next season or a long-term backup role -- depending on what the Redskins brain trust collectively decides to do in the offseason -- Rex Grossman performed reasonably well. Sure, everything is not about numbers, and the Redskins won just one of his three starts, but here are his stats anyway:
Week 15 at Cowboys: 25-43, 322 yards, 4 TD, 2 INT, 1 fumble lost, 93.4 QB rating
Week 16 at Jaguars: 19-39, 182 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 0 fumbles lost, 60.0 QB rating
Week 17 vs. Giants: 26-44, 336 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT, 2 fumbles lost, 88.8 QB rating
Total: 840 yards, 7 TD, 4 INT, 81.4 QB rating, 55.6 completion percentage, 3 fumbles lost
It's worth noting that Grossman did not face an elite defense in his three starts. In terms of points allowed per game, Grossman faced the 17th-ranked Giants (21.7), 27th-ranked Jaguars (26.2), and 31st-ranked Cowboys (27.3) -- not exactly a Murderers' Row of defenses. Considering how often he turned the ball over against those defenses, that doesn't bode well for Grossman if/when he faces better defenses in the future.
In Week 8 against the Lions when Grossman filled in for Donovan McNabb in the fourth quarter, Grossman, which I'm sure most fans remember well, was immediately sacked and lost a fumble -- which was returned for a touchdown -- putting the game away for good. The fumble wasn't necessarily his fault -- there was very little blocking on the play -- but it happened. Still, I didn't include that fumble in the numbers above and focused on his three starts.
Grossman's three-week performance indicates a few things: 1) He can, when given time, put up some points in this offense; 2) His completion percentage is a little low for an offense in which he's seemingly familiar with; and 3) He will turn the ball over. Turning the ball over seven times in three games is inexcusable, but he did also throw seven touchdown passes. If the Shanahans are going to go with Grossman as the starting quarterback next season, they're going to get a quarterback who can lead the offense to a few scoring drives, but he'll also make some boneheaded plays and turn the ball over at inopportune times. This is Rex Grossman, after all.
Grossman deserves credit for playing this well after holding a clipboard for most of the season. He faced enormous pressure when he took over for McNabb, and he didn't embarrass himself. His 81.4 QB rating (in his three starts) isn't spectacular or anything, but it still is about four points better than McNabb's (77.1). I, or probably most fans for that matter, didn't think Grossman would play well and would make the Redskins look even worse. Instead, he looked decent at times and certainly played no worse than McNabb did. Whether or not that means he'll get another chance to start next season is another question, and that will depend on what the Redskins do in the draft.
If I had to guess, I'd say that Grossman performed about as well as the Shanahans thought he would, meaning that they may decide to go with him as the starter next season and draft a quarterback for the future. Grossman as the starter for a full season? If that ends up being the plan, the Redskins better surround Grossman with some much-improved talent, or 2011 may end up being disastrous.
Week 15 at Cowboys: 25-43, 322 yards, 4 TD, 2 INT, 1 fumble lost, 93.4 QB rating
Week 16 at Jaguars: 19-39, 182 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 0 fumbles lost, 60.0 QB rating
Week 17 vs. Giants: 26-44, 336 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT, 2 fumbles lost, 88.8 QB rating
Total: 840 yards, 7 TD, 4 INT, 81.4 QB rating, 55.6 completion percentage, 3 fumbles lost
It's worth noting that Grossman did not face an elite defense in his three starts. In terms of points allowed per game, Grossman faced the 17th-ranked Giants (21.7), 27th-ranked Jaguars (26.2), and 31st-ranked Cowboys (27.3) -- not exactly a Murderers' Row of defenses. Considering how often he turned the ball over against those defenses, that doesn't bode well for Grossman if/when he faces better defenses in the future.
In Week 8 against the Lions when Grossman filled in for Donovan McNabb in the fourth quarter, Grossman, which I'm sure most fans remember well, was immediately sacked and lost a fumble -- which was returned for a touchdown -- putting the game away for good. The fumble wasn't necessarily his fault -- there was very little blocking on the play -- but it happened. Still, I didn't include that fumble in the numbers above and focused on his three starts.
Grossman's three-week performance indicates a few things: 1) He can, when given time, put up some points in this offense; 2) His completion percentage is a little low for an offense in which he's seemingly familiar with; and 3) He will turn the ball over. Turning the ball over seven times in three games is inexcusable, but he did also throw seven touchdown passes. If the Shanahans are going to go with Grossman as the starting quarterback next season, they're going to get a quarterback who can lead the offense to a few scoring drives, but he'll also make some boneheaded plays and turn the ball over at inopportune times. This is Rex Grossman, after all.
Grossman deserves credit for playing this well after holding a clipboard for most of the season. He faced enormous pressure when he took over for McNabb, and he didn't embarrass himself. His 81.4 QB rating (in his three starts) isn't spectacular or anything, but it still is about four points better than McNabb's (77.1). I, or probably most fans for that matter, didn't think Grossman would play well and would make the Redskins look even worse. Instead, he looked decent at times and certainly played no worse than McNabb did. Whether or not that means he'll get another chance to start next season is another question, and that will depend on what the Redskins do in the draft.
If I had to guess, I'd say that Grossman performed about as well as the Shanahans thought he would, meaning that they may decide to go with him as the starter next season and draft a quarterback for the future. Grossman as the starter for a full season? If that ends up being the plan, the Redskins better surround Grossman with some much-improved talent, or 2011 may end up being disastrous.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Week 17 picks
This post is my first in 2011, so Happy New Year, everyone. I finished 10-6 in Week 15, and Week 16's picks can be found here, here, here, and here. Yeah, that's a little confusing, but I couldn't put up a full picks post because of the holidays. Blame it on Santa.
For the most part, Week 17 is basically a crapshoot. Some playoff-bound teams will start resting their players, and there are already a ton of injuries since it's the last week of a long season. For what it's worth, I'm also not a fan of extending the regular season two games. Just take a look at some of the quarterbacks who will probably get playing time this week: Joe Webb, Stephen McGee, Jimmy Clausen, Brodie Croyle, Mark Brunell/Kellen Clemens, Kevin Kolb, Rex Grossman, Alex Smith/Troy Smith, John Skelton, Trent Edwards, and Charlie Whitehurst. It's hard to get excited about that. Some of them will end up playing only because their teams will be resting their regular starting quarterbacks, but most of them will be playing as a result of injuries. No wonder the league is trying to protect quarterbacks, especially its stars, so much.
Anyway, on to the picks. Enjoy the games!
Raiders (+3.5) over CHIEFS
PATRIOTS (-6) over Dolphins
Steelers (-6) over BROWNS
RAVENS (-10) over Bengals
Vikings (+3) over LIONS
Bills (+8) over JETS
FALCONS (-14) over Panthers
SAINTS (-7.5) over Buccaneers
COLTS (-10) over Titans
TEXANS (-3) over Jaguars
Giants (-4.5) over REDSKINS
PACKERS (-10) over Bears
EAGLES (-3) over Cowboys
Cardinals (+6) over 49ERS
BRONCOS (+3.5) over Chargers
Rams (-3) over SEAHAWKS
Last week: 9-7
Season: 109-125-6
For the most part, Week 17 is basically a crapshoot. Some playoff-bound teams will start resting their players, and there are already a ton of injuries since it's the last week of a long season. For what it's worth, I'm also not a fan of extending the regular season two games. Just take a look at some of the quarterbacks who will probably get playing time this week: Joe Webb, Stephen McGee, Jimmy Clausen, Brodie Croyle, Mark Brunell/Kellen Clemens, Kevin Kolb, Rex Grossman, Alex Smith/Troy Smith, John Skelton, Trent Edwards, and Charlie Whitehurst. It's hard to get excited about that. Some of them will end up playing only because their teams will be resting their regular starting quarterbacks, but most of them will be playing as a result of injuries. No wonder the league is trying to protect quarterbacks, especially its stars, so much.
Anyway, on to the picks. Enjoy the games!
Raiders (+3.5) over CHIEFS
PATRIOTS (-6) over Dolphins
Steelers (-6) over BROWNS
RAVENS (-10) over Bengals
Vikings (+3) over LIONS
Bills (+8) over JETS
FALCONS (-14) over Panthers
SAINTS (-7.5) over Buccaneers
COLTS (-10) over Titans
TEXANS (-3) over Jaguars
Giants (-4.5) over REDSKINS
PACKERS (-10) over Bears
EAGLES (-3) over Cowboys
Cardinals (+6) over 49ERS
BRONCOS (+3.5) over Chargers
Rams (-3) over SEAHAWKS
Last week: 9-7
Season: 109-125-6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)