Olympic Thoughts Day Three

I watched a lot of day time coverage yesterday and managed to stay off Twitter, ESPN, and any source that may show results for prime time.  However, I ended up at Third Base, because well it was Monday and thus my prime time viewing was affected. 

1.   Women's volleyball was extremely fun to watch and I feel it could quickly become more popular than basketball for girl's if it hasn't already.  Some of those girls are crazy athletic.  Granted, the USA vs Brazil match was the best of the best but I still managed to watch from start to finish which is something I've never done before when it comes to volleyball.  There is a lot more strategy to the game than when I play at Volley's that is for sure.  I plan on watching their matches as much as possible going forward.  Destinee Hooker is an absolute stud.  Too bad her name sucks.



2.  While watching volleyball I couldn't help but think "why is women's basketball so boring?"  The solution to this problem dawned on me.  Lower the hoop!  Women's volleyball is played at a lower net level and makes for a more entertaining game.  Lower the hoop and let the girls dunk and attack the rim and women's basketball becomes a whole different beast.

3.  Speaking of women's basketball the USA had a close call against Angola yesterday.  I know what you are thinking.  Angola is powerhouse and you've probably been to a few of their games right?  In reality the USA won by 52 points.  Not much drama right?  The point spread just happened to be 54 points.  How do they know!?  Luckily for my friend he took Angola.  No word yet on if he is taking Tunisia tonight at +55.

4.  I like this Missy Franklin girl.  She is extremely humble and may very well be the face of USA swimming after the Olympics if she hasn't already.  She reportedly turned down endorsement deals worth as much as 150,000 dollars so she could maintain her amateur status and compete for her high school and future college team.  That is pretty cool although I wonder if her and her parent's tune will change when there is a zero or two added to that figure.  If she takes the money good for her, she will do good things with it.

5.  Lochte may have felt like it was his time now but 4th place really?  If you are going to talk a big game make it to the podium.  This proves how impressive Phelps was in 2008.  I've mentioned it before, I'm Team Phelps all the way and every medal he gets this Olympics I find to be extremely impressive.  What I like is that he is helping some of the younger swimmers such as Missy Franklin out with strategy when there are multiple races in a night.  On a side note though, who decided that swimming was prime time material?  Its been that way, I get that but when did it start?  Instead of some of the fluff they show, replay some archery or badminton.  Its not like they are waiting for the next heat in swimming, its tape-delayed for goodness sake!  With that being said NBC has done a pretty good job with its coverage across the different channels.  I'm not sure where they find these people but their on-air talent has been pretty good.


Note:  The men's gymnastics team doesn't get any coverage from me due to their lack of even showing up last night.  SMH

Olympic Thoughts Day Two

Today I had a self-imposed Twitter ban for the day as I watched live coverage (and the Cubs game) while refusing to obtain the results that would be shown in prime-time.  That worked really well until I switched to ESPNU and all of sudden the resulted scrolled across the bottom line.  Damn you ESPN!  The coverage tonight was pure drama, yet I unfortunately knew the results going in.  Anyway, here are my 5 rings for today's events.

1) Why does the IOC seem to always mess something up when it comes to gymnastics or figure skating?  WHY, WHY, WHY is each team only allowed two competitors in the all-around?  Jordyn Wieber was the favorite coming into the Olympics to win the all-around competition and now she won't get a shot.  Yes, she had control of the situation but shouldn't the final consist of the top 24 all-around gymnasts?  Its very possible USA could have the top three but we will never know.

2) More gymnastics here.  How awkward is the gymnastics competition intrasquad?  The hugs are clearly fake and although they want to qualify as a team they can't help but root against their teammates so they can advance.  Maybe with the qualifying rounds out of the way they will be able to just go out and compete.  I could see myself becoming a big fan of Wieber if she comes out and proves her ability in the team all-around.  She gets the early award for the most impressive interview so far.  As the defending international champion and someone who has been training for four years, her dreams were crushed because of one misstep.  Many professional athletes that are idolized these days don't handle adversity in interviews the way she did.  Kudos to her.

3) In the current state of technology you find out any relevant and many times irrelevant information instantaneously.  Yet, for once many around the world are trying to avoid it.  Shouldn't it be easy to go a mere 12 hours without finding out what happened on a different continent?  Surprisingly its very difficult, and unfortunately takes the drama out of prime-time coverage.  The worst part is many of the big events are only in qualifying stages and when they get to the latter stages it will be that much more difficult.

4) Women's sand volleyball in London isn't as fun to watch.  Hint: it has nothing to do with the competition and everything to do with the wardrobe.  Can't we get them a little Iowa heat over there??

5) In my latest conspiracy theory is it possible Lochte blew the relay on purpose?  How does he blow that lead?  Is his rivalry with Phelps really intense enough that he would sacrifice a gold medal for himself just so Phelps wouldn't get one?  I am on Team Phelps and although I don't think Lochte would do such a thing I find myself pulling for Phelps who is participating in his FOURTH Olympics.

And the next viral Olympic video....funny stuff!

Olympic Thoughts Day One

The Olympics are underway and I am already hooked.  Sports that I wouldn't think to watch are now interesting.  It is a buffet of sports served all day long.  There is just enough of everything and not too much of anything.  My "5 Ring" thoughts for the first day of London 2012.

1) Archery was the first event I watched thoroughly and it just happened to be the first medal for the United States.  After their stunning upset of Korea in the semi-finals they had an intense match for the gold medal against Italy.  It was great entertainment as it literally came down to the last arrow.  So far it has been my favorite event to watch and I look forward to the individual men's tournament coming up in the next few days.

2) Handball is fun to watch and looks fun to play.  Everyone else played it in physical education class in high school I guess.  I don't remember playing it, but there is a good chance I did.  A mix of soccer, basketball and lacrosse it is rather entertaining to watch.

3) Badminton doesn't look like badminton at the Olympic level.  It looks more like tennis on a smaller court, making for better action.  Fun to watch.

4) Sand volleyball requires an incredible amount of athleticism and endurance.  Its very impressive to watch.  I'm guessing they didn't train at Volley's.

5) I'm not a big fan of soccer, tennis, or even basketball as Olympic sports.  They are already international sports.  I can't bring myself to watch any of them.  Soccer has the World Cup and other tournaments, tennis is basically Wimbledon II and all of the best basketball players already play in the NBA, however it is fun to watch the collection of talent together on one team.

Penn State Down But Not Out

There are many reactions to the sanctions dealt Penn State's way.  I feel Penn State got what it deserved, yet I still question whether it was the NCAA's role to hand out the sanctions.  It is certainly an unprecedented, extremely unfortunate situation.  I wish Penn State would have talked more with the NCAA and self-imposed their sanctions.  For most programs these sanctions would be the "death" of the program.  Many are declaring the death of Penn State football for at least 10 years, another example of sports hyperbole's going too far.  I mean, has anyone or anything been DEAD for 10 years only to come back to life?  It would be easy to look at the sanctions and immediately laugh at Bill O'Briens belief they can survive the next four years.  Here is why and how I think they can make it through.

1)  Penn State players have the ability to transfer without penalty and play right away.  Complete disadvantage right?  Think Remember the Titans.  Every player that is on the roster going forward wants to be at Penn State and is, in a popular football catch phrase, "All In".  Every player has a free pass to leave.  You want bowl gifts? Leave.  You feel your playing time is unjust?  Leave.  You don't want to be associated with Penn State?  Leave.  However, come that first practice of fall camp every single player will be able to look at their teammates knowing that they are committed to the team and restoring the image of Penn State. 

2)  Bill O'Brien.  To be honest I wasn't sure what to think of the guy when he first got hired.  After listening to him speak I have some respect for him as a coach and leader of young athletes.  He almost has a Rhoads like charisma in which he fumbles over words and doesn't appear to be a used-car salesmen.  He also has the ability to relate to the players.  He took the job when it appeared no one else wanted it.  As a player I can respect that.

3) Non-conference scheduling will be crucial.  No longer will Penn State be playing the Alabama's of the world.  Bring in the no names and get the W's.  When the Big Ten moves to a nine-game conference schedule they should still be entering league play at 3-0.

4) No bowl games?  No problem.  This point somewhat contradicts my previous thought, but follow along.  Look at USC.  What do they do when they can't go to a bowl game?  Go to Hawaii and play the Rainbow Warriors.  Is there really a better place to travel for a meaningless bowl game?  Better yet, schedule it at the end of the season!  Treat that game as your bowl game.  A reward to the players who stuck it out.

5) Penn State football is like a cult.  Ultimately, why they got where they did.  However, going forward I think they very well could be their biggest help.  BOB kept saying 108,000 fans during his interview with Rece Davis.  He also pointed out unless you are in the NCG its a hell of a lot more fun to play in front of 108,000 fans screaming for you than some bowl game.  Will the fans continue to show up?  I think they could become even more nuts for Penn State.

6) Penn State is in a division with the likes of Illinois, Indiana and Purdue.  Sure Ohio State, also on sanctions, will be back and they will have to compete with Wisconsin as well.  However, stay better than the bottom three and get your non-conference wins and Penn State my friends is bowl eligible.

7) Project 2016.  Make a bowl game in the first year "back".  Red-shirt the incoming recruiting class. Sell them and the future classes on hard work and proving Penn State will be back on the national scene immediately.  Seems catchy, and for some reason do-able.


 I think we are going to see more players stay than anyone thinks.  I will stress I do not approve of anything Penn State did in the past and I don't like their fan base attitude throughout the whole ordeal yet I find myself pulling for the players and Bill O'Brien.  These 18-23 year olds have a free ticket out of town.  An easy way out so to speak.  Those that stay, and those that come this next year knowing they aren't competing for post-season play I will root for.  Am I rooting for Penn State?  No.  I am rooting for the young players that chose to stick to their commitment through incredible adversity.  If Bill O'Brien sells his message and parlays the "us against the world" mentality into momentum Penn State football will be back, maybe as soon as 2016. 

NBA's Straight From HS Drama

The Dwight Howard drama, and the Rockets' unfortunate feeding of it, got me thinking about something.  What do Howard, LeBron James, and Kobe Bryant have in common?  They're very good, sure, but they've also held the teams that drafted them hostage.  And they all came straight out of high school.

The requirement of one year of college has helped the play of the NBA, and it's also helped in another way - less drama.  Howard has been screwing with the Magic for a year, and if they can't work something out with the Rockets, it'll drag into a second season.  LeBron was constantly bemoaning the collection of talent around him and ultimately left his team in one of the most self absorbed displays in sports history.  The Lakers are constantly trying to keep Kobe happy and nothing is good enough.  Or his fault.  They had to move an in-his-prime, HOF player Shaquille O'Neal because him and Kobe didn't get along.  For these guys, it's about the ME not the TEAM.

Compare this to Kevin Durant, one of the most understated superstars sports has seen in awhile, quietly signing an extension with the small market Thunder.  Or the equally quiet 2011 MVP winner Derrick Rose.  Blake Griffin signed an extension with the perennial doormat Clippers without expressing a desire to explore other possibilities.  The display of respect and class both teams had after the Spurs-Thunder series was moving.  The Spurs are an old team - this year probably being their last, best shot at winning a title, and they could have been bitter.  The Thunder are one of the NBA's youngest teams, and showboating or gloating wouldn't have been unexpected.  When the whistle blew, both teams embraced each other in respect of a truly excellent series of basketball.  All of the Spurs either played college ball or professionally overseas.  Same with OKC, save Kendrick Perkins (who isn't always the most stable).

The college experience seems to help these young, rich, famous athletes stay grounded.  But why?  I'd argue it's a couple of things.  First, a different location takes anyone out of their comfort zone.  Second, even if a freshman shows up and is the best player for the team, they still have to compete against and ultimately with seniors who may have been there for 4 years already.  Lastly, for the first time in their lives, their incredible, individual talents don't necessarily equate to team success.

Let's take Kevin Durant for an example.  Durant is from the Washington D.C. area and then went to college at the University of Texas.  I don't know what his life was like in DC, or where he lived but I know this - Austin, Texas is unlike anywhere else in the country.  It's preppy and laid back, hippie and expensive, high tech and old.  Really an odd, odd confluence of people and attitudes.  Completely different from either the city or suburbs in which he grew up.  Different situations are uncomfortable at first, require work to truly fit in, and are ultimately character building.

Durant showed up at UT as a top 2 recruit.  Perhaps this isn't the best example, because he was immediately the #1 on a team of freshmen and sophomores... or perhaps it is.  Durant was the consensus best player in college basketball, his numbers got better during the Big XII season, and it still wasn't enough.  UT finished third in the regular season standings, didn't win the conference tournament, and got bounced in the second round of the NCAAs.  Not a spectacular season for the team, but it's exactly where he found himself with the Sonics/Thunder.  Great player on a terrible, young team.  But they are growing up together and learning to win together.  He could have left and had his pick of cities, but chose to stay in the midwest.

Maybe Kevin Durant is an anomaly.  Maybe he never wanted the bright lights.  But his best friend is Michael Beasley, who has had a rocky road through the pros.  There are contradictions to my theory, sure. Like Carmelo Anthony, similarly a one-and-done player but also a pain in the ass.  There are plenty of players that went to college and cause problems but I can't think of one straight from high school player that is the consummate professional.  Amare Stoudemire might come closest, but he still has his ups and downs.  Lamar Odom is a train wreck.  Andrew Bynum is talent unrealized, and a player I hope the Rockets do NOT get. I guess Tyson Chandler has been pretty quiet bouncing around the league, but that's my only example of the converse.

The one year of college rule is the best thing David Stern has done for the NBA.  Teams have a better way to evaluate talent and fans know the players.  It is a win-win.  It's effect on the college game isn't quite so easy, but I'd say it's been positive too.  The level of play in the pros raises every year, and so does the professionalism.  Better skill and less whining makes the NBA more appealing and more profitable.

Mike Leach "Swing Your Sword" - my take

I read Mike Leach's book a little differently.  There's so much talk of leadership these days, and so little demonstration of it, that I'm always looking for examples.  Usually the easiest, simplest approach to something produces the best results, and Leach exemplifies that.  Coaches make coaching look hard, perhaps as a barrier to entry, perhaps it's an ego thing.  Most seem to like the idea of beating your head into a brick wall to try to knock it down.  Leach identified early on it's much easier and simpler to go around the wall or over it.

Work smarter, not harder.  Everyone says it.  Few people actually follow their own advice.  It takes an analytical mind and a little bit of time to identify a smarter way to work.  Most people dismiss this step.  The impatient always want to DO SOMETHING.  Leach writes that problems are solved taking small, smart steps that have a likely positive result.  His offenses might have racked up large numbers, but it was the small plays that got them there.  Simple routes, simple reads, lots of options.  Leach refuses to box himself in by down and distance.  If a play is good somewhere on the field, it's good anywhere.  It doesn't have to be difficult.  Apply the same solution to as many problems as possible.

Leach promotes an atmosphere conducive to creativity and sharing.  He discourages group solutions because group-think eliminates unique and novel ideas.  Again, every corporation and college and collaboration in between say they promote this through "entrepreneurship" and other catch phrases, but the safe approach is always the one done before.  Leach lets his coaching staff (and graduate assistants) know that not every idea will be used.  Unique ideas, just like tired, used ideas, aren't all great.  As long as the collaborators don't take this  personally and continue to contribute, this is indeed the most effective way to arrive at solutions.  In this way, Leach was molded by those he coached under.  Working with Hal Mumme in an incubator of ideas allowed Mike Leach the time to develop his own style and prove it before being absorbed by big boy old-school football at Oklahoma.  If he'd tried to make the jump sooner, maybe he would have been indoctrinated with three yards and a cloud of dust like too many other coaches.

Players are obviously the most important part to a coach's success and Leach has defined ways to get the most out of them too.  He writes of giving everyone a chance.  Seems obvious, but his example is especially impressive - Wes Welker.  Welker wasn't recruited out of high school, even though his tape was great.  Welker came to Tech but no one was a believer.  Pretty soon, his peers recognized he was the best on the team.  Because he was overlooked coming out of high school, Welker was determined.  Again, Welker was disregarded going from college to the NFL.  Pretty soon, he was the best receiver on the Dolphins and then the Super Bowl winning Patriots.  If Leach doesn't give this kid a chance, it's possible he isn't in the NFL.  What's amazing is this perennial pro-bowler wasn't even drafted.  Everyone deserves a chance.  Talent will show itself pretty quickly.  Looking at measurables and stats is easy.  Auditioning people in person is hard and time consuming, but it is the true show of skill.  Leach, like all successful leaders, found talent that others had passed over.  He had to.  But that he was so successful should demonstrate its importance.

Mike Leach is ultimately a true coach.  The difference between coaching and teaching may seem trivial, but teaching implies starting from scratch - giving someone completely new information.  Coaching involves identifying talent, improving that talent and ultimately applying it to solve a problem.  This is Leach's gift.  He's taken every difficult situation and succeeded, often spectacularly.  He didn't do it through the most gifted athletes but through a system that preached simplicity and execution.  Anyone can coach - teachers, supervisors, parents - and be successful by being open to all people and ideas.

Texans 2012 Draft Recap

The Texans looked to address some needs and added some depth in the 2012 draft.  I'm still surprised they didn't look at a tackle.  They must feel strongly about Rashad Butler. He hasn't been a starter before, but has played alright as a backup.  The position is really thin right now.  I still like picking tackles, then letting them slide to guard if they don't pan out.

Now that the Texans are good, they've found themselves with players that fit their systems nicely.  Because they're up against the salary cap, they're now finding in-kind replacements for players.  It's the cliche that great organizations don't rebuild, they reload. 

The Texans have also started targeting players that have fallen because of injury or suspension.  They're looking for first or second round value in the middle rounds.  I'm glad to see they've come off their stance that players have to be squeeky clean, it opens up the available pool greatly.

1st Round - Whitney Mercilus - DE - Illinois

Mercilus will play rush linebacker in the Texans 3-4.  I haven't heard much bad about this player, except that he only produced one year.  With redshirts and most good players leaving as soon as they can, I don't think it'll be unusual for players to only have one good year of production.  Especially at positions like this, athleticism trumps experience.  

Quarterback pressure was a skill for the Texans last year, but they've added another rush specialist.  I think there are a couple things at play here.  One, more pressure on the QB takes it off the cornerbacks.  I don't think the CBs were any better last year, they just didn't have to defend as long.  (Another reason I think they should keep trying for more corners.)  Also, look at the quarterbacks in the division - Andrew Luck, Colts, Jake Locker, Titans, and Blaine Gabbart, Jags.  Their pre-snap reads and progression reads won't be very good, especially with a hand in their face.  Like this pick.  Replaces Mario Williams.

3rd Round - DeVier Posey - WR - Ohio State

Posey will replace Jacoby Jones on the depth chart, but I'd imagine they'd like to see him line up outside opposite Andre Johnson.  I like Kevin Walter as a slot receiver better than a wide-out so if this works, it'd be a great win for the Texans.  I wasn't so sure about trading out of the second round, but they made the extra 3rd and 4th round picks work.  

Obviously, the Texans don't think they need a second impact receiver on the team.  I'm worried about this because Johnson is getting old.  He missed a bunch of time last year, so it would have been nice to see them go for a 1a type guy.  They thought Posey would have gone higher without the memorabilia thing so this was a value pick for them.

3rd Round - Brandon Brooks - G - Miami
Brooks is a big, big boy.  Somewhere between 340 and three hundred and seventy pounds.  He isn't the prototypical zone-blocking guard.  Way too big.  Most are closer to 300 pounds.  But at 6'5", he could drop weight and still be a load.  My guess here is they try him at right tackle (not sure if he played any tackle in college or not).  Really no loss here.  If he works, they can start him at a pretty important position.  If he doesn't, he should still be able to compete at the guard spots.  Didn't care for it at first, because I thought they should try for a tackle, but this just might work.

4th Round - Ben Jones - C - Georgia
Another pick I didn't understand at first.  The Texans signed Chris Meyers to an extension in the off season. Jones sure looks like a specific fit at center.  Prototypical size for a center, started about 50 games at center in college.  I think they'l try to stretch this pick too, and work him at guard.  Perhaps they felt he didn't need any coaching up at center, which would free all his time to work at guard.  If this is indeed the case, the pick is very solid.  However, if Jones ends up as a single position backup, this pick would be very disappointing, considering the Texans had only taken one guaranteed starter before him.

4th Round - Keyshawn Martin - WR - Michigan St.
First off, great GREAT name for a wide receiver.  I'm inclined to endorse this pick on that alone.  The Texans cut Jacoby Jones and Martin has a lot of experience at punt returner.  That he has a chance to make the depth chart as a third receiver is icing.  A "starter," even in special teams is a good pick for the fourth round.  Consider too that the Texans may go for more four receiver sets after the loss of second tight end Joel Dreesen.  Martin could see the field right off the bat.

4th Round - Jared Crick - DT - Nebraska
Hate the Cornhuskers, love this pick.  Crick was a huge name a couple years ago.  Great drafting teams identify talent, and Crick had it.  Slowed by injuries, this pick has the possibility to be a HUGE steal.  He'll play DE in the 3-4, opposite JJ Watt.  And wow, he's got size like Watt, 6'6" and 285, these guys could anchor (pun intended) the line for years to come.  Love this pick in the 4th.  Great possibility to come in and push out Antonio Smith this year, saving the team some cash.

5th Round - Randy Bullock - K - Texas A&M
Well, there's got to be one.  Kubes (that's what I call him), loves him some Aggies.  And this portly fellow is as Aggie as they come.  Zero other kickers on the roster, so I guess he's got the job.  I don't remember him making big kicks or knocking them in from 50 yards.  TAMU fans don't either.  Best case situation, he's a perfectly invisible kicker.  Worst case, he makes it through the summer as the kicker and destroys the Texans season in a meltdown.  At least they didn't draft him in the 3rd???

6th Round - Nick Mondek - T - Purdue
Last year's seventh round pick, a tackle, is still on the roster, so who knows?  Numbers show a good size, wasn't graded to be drafted.  Texans haven't had any luck with their late round picks in general, and lineman specifically.  It was too late to try to take a right tackle to compete.  An incumbent backup will always beat a sixth round selection (cue plate of crow?) so I'm not expecting much.  Would have liked a project in the defensive secondary to come in and work in Wade's system.  I pretty much view Wade as a defensive miracle worker - if anyone could make an undersized, 4.4 type cornerback work, it would be him.

Closing Thoughts / How I Predicted
The safe way to draft, as I see it, is from the football out.  Quarterback, if you need one, then offensive line, defensive line, then running backs, linebackers, then skill players, then special teams contributors.  The lines contribute every play, and are cheaper in the long run, especially if the pick doesn't work out.  That said, there are a couple positions that can contribute, even if they are misses - offensive tackle and cornerback.  Tackles can play the left side or right side, and can drop down to guard.  It might be embarrassing to pick a tackle early and have them drop to guard, but at least they can contribute for years.  Same with cornerbacks, most safeties started as cornerback prospects that dropped to safety.  I assume, I'm not looking it up.

Well, so how did the Texans do?  Fine.  Much like they do every year.  Solid picks, nothing that rocks the Richter scale.  Unfortunately, no one that makes pro bowls either.  Every pick has a chance to make the depth chart, but no one would be surprised if none did.  I guess the great teams build on solid drafts, but the Texans don't have the benefit of the doubt.  One decent season does not make a great team.  They don't get the benefit of the doubt yet.

I missed on the first round.  I thought they'd take an offensive tackle, and also didn't think they'd address linebacker depth in the first round.  They didn't take a CB, which I thought would have been a good and safe pick.  Also, I think they're getting assumptive thinking they can pull a fullback out of free air.  Either TE or FB or both will be thin or weak this year.

What did I nail?  Two WR.  One as a returner, only it seems the Texans were more serious about filling this need.  Guard (tackle) - I hope they'll try Brooks at tackle, but he should compete for either guard spot if not.  The need I saw at linebacker was for depth so I don't completely understand the first pick.  I thought there'd be a chance they'd take a DE and they did.  I win, I guess.

Solid, unspectacular draft for the Texans.  Nothing here likely makes them better this year.  Again.