The Leafs are awful, and neither the author nor any other Leafs fan will ever attempt to tell you otherwise. They have been awful from before the season began, and nobody ever expected any more than what they've gotten this season. No what really hurts for Leafs fans are the countless trade and free agent flops, such as Larry Murphy, Owen Nolan, and Andrew Raycroft. Not to mention the ever popular practice of signing and trading for good players who are either broken or well past their prime, such as Eric Lindros, Jason Allison, and Jeff O'Neill.(all in the same season).
Over the previous three seasons, though nobody would claim that they could have been cup contenders, the Leafs were capable of more, and regularly showed it with late season surges which would fall just short of a playoff berth, and would result in the loss of a possible high draft pick. Considering that the NHL has the thinnest draft pool in the universe, Leafs fans have come to feel insulted by these wins (and OT losses).
But again, it could be worse. Consider for a moment the 1983 Stanley Cup finals. The Edmonton Oilers versus the New York Islanders. At the time, the Oilers had several young stars on their team, and were just coming into their own. Like last year's Penguins. The Islanders were an established hockey power with a much greater depth of playoff experience. Like last year's Red Wings. Like last year's Cup finals the more experienced team beat the snot out of the newbies, and the newbies (presumably) learned a valuable lesson on what it takes to beat the toughest opponents when the games matter most. The Edmonton Oilers came back the next season and dominated the league, winning 57 of 80 games, and going 15-4 in the playoffs en route to the first of 5 Stanley Cups in 7 years. And this year's Pittsburgh Penguins are in real danger of missing the playoffs. For all of the so-called evolution of hockey, and all of the all-star ballot stuffing (By the way, the Canadiens with their FOUR starting all-stars are also in trouble), these guys just can't seem to get it done.
Christ, this year you're better off being a Leafs fan.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
A History of Bonehead Moves
Jim Marshall. The newer generation of football fans (read: the author and his contemporaries) hear the name Jim marshall, and they don't think of his 127 career sacks (unofficial, since the sack wasn't an official stat until 1982), or his former NFL record 282 consecutive games (he has only been passed by punter Jeff Feagles, so he's still the REAL Iron Man), or his NFL record 29 fumble recoveries. Well, they don't think of 28 of those 29 recoveries. They do think of this one, from a game against the 49ers on October 25, 1964:
When you hear someone say "Jim Marshall ran a fumble back the wrong way", you make a couple of assumptions. First, you assume that the play was around midfield, since players generally have some awareness of field position, but the recovery took place on the 49ers 35 yard line. Second, you assume that there was some kind of scrum, so there would be some kind of confusion as to which way either team was going, but the 49ers player was establishing forward progress in the open field right up until the time he fumbled the ball. You also assume that Marshall would have been spun around or in some way disoriented at some point during the play, but he just picks the ball up and starts running (the wrong way, that is). Finally, you assume that he was just running for his life, and never looked back, but he looked back several times, presumably thinking that his team mates were waving their arms, pointing the other way, jumping up and down, shouting "dear God, stop running the wrong way", burying their faces in their hands, punching themselves in the testicles, crying, vomiting, and getting a fix on him with their sniper rifles all in celebration of his apparent touchdown.
During the author's extensive research (searching for Jim Marshall on Wikipedia), it was discovered that Marshall redeemed himself by scoring a sack and a more conventional fumble recovery which would help the Vikings come back to win the game. Also, Roy "Wrong Way" Riegels sent Marshall a letter reading "Welcome to the club". Riegels's own wrong way incident occured in none other than the Grandaddy Of Them All, the 1929 Rose Bowl.
When you hear someone say "Jim Marshall ran a fumble back the wrong way", you make a couple of assumptions. First, you assume that the play was around midfield, since players generally have some awareness of field position, but the recovery took place on the 49ers 35 yard line. Second, you assume that there was some kind of scrum, so there would be some kind of confusion as to which way either team was going, but the 49ers player was establishing forward progress in the open field right up until the time he fumbled the ball. You also assume that Marshall would have been spun around or in some way disoriented at some point during the play, but he just picks the ball up and starts running (the wrong way, that is). Finally, you assume that he was just running for his life, and never looked back, but he looked back several times, presumably thinking that his team mates were waving their arms, pointing the other way, jumping up and down, shouting "dear God, stop running the wrong way", burying their faces in their hands, punching themselves in the testicles, crying, vomiting, and getting a fix on him with their sniper rifles all in celebration of his apparent touchdown.
During the author's extensive research (searching for Jim Marshall on Wikipedia), it was discovered that Marshall redeemed himself by scoring a sack and a more conventional fumble recovery which would help the Vikings come back to win the game. Also, Roy "Wrong Way" Riegels sent Marshall a letter reading "Welcome to the club". Riegels's own wrong way incident occured in none other than the Grandaddy Of Them All, the 1929 Rose Bowl.
Quote of the day
Interviewer (probably Darrell Waltrip) - "So why did you pick him (Ryan Newman) as your team mate?"
Tony Stewart - "Because he's the only guy you makes me look thin"
Tony Stewart - "Because he's the only guy you makes me look thin"
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
A return (of sorts)
So the author realises that there have been 3 consecutive non-comedic posts in the past couple of days. For fear of this blog becoming too preachy BIV would like to present something at least moderately funny. Of course one can't write a comedic internet post without making use of the most powerful of the cornerstones of both comedy and the internet... plagiarism! So, stolen almost directly from DSBT's files, BIV is proud to introduce........
ALEX PICARD!!!
JEAN LUC ROBITAILLE!!!
AND BJORN BORG!!!!!
JEAN LUC ROBITAILLE!!!
AND BJORN BORG!!!!!
More drugs
So today the topic on TSN turned to the all time liars in sports, capped by Pete Rose's denial of any involvement with gambling.
Let it first be known that the author agrees with the lifetime ban imposed on Pete Rose by MLB. Many people ask what's the harm, since there's no proof of him ever betting against his own teams? Well here's the harm: he broke the most serious rule in baseball at the time.
No gambling is a serious rule because the influence of gambling can have a negative effect on the integrity of the game. But what is possible with gambling is always true with steroids and HGH. If you make yourself a better player by cheating, you should not be recognized alongside Hank Aaron. Like Ben Johnson, your records should be omitted. If Pete Rose can't get into the Hall of Fame for gambling, then many of the best players of our time should certainly not be afforded that honour. In fact we should see more players removed from the ballot than inducted.
And speaking of lifetime bans, let's talk about Buck Weaver and Barry Bonds.
Buck Weaver was banned from baseball along with 7 other players for involvement in the 1919 World Series fix. Barry Bonds has not been banned from baseball for his involvement in the BALCO scandal.
Buck Weaver hit .324 with no errors in the 1919 series, so there's no evidence that he intended throw any games. Barry Bonds hit 762 home runs in his career, with 5 of his 6 highest season totals coming after he turned 35, which happened the year when Greg Anderson of BALCO became his trainer.
Weaver's alleged actions put a smear on one team in one season. Bond's alleged actions put a smear on the most prestigious record in baseball.
In spite of the lack of evidence of any direct wrongdoing, Weaver was banned from baseball for his knowledge of the fix, and failure to report it... this rule was adopted by MLB after the 1919 Series and enforced retroactively in Weaver's case. Barry Bonds broke a rule for which there wasn't much enforcement at the time, and if it were to be enforced retroactively he would be suspended for 50 days.
Buck Weaver's team mates, the ones who took the pay off, did so because at the time baseball players barely scraped a living out of their salaries, and were treated like second class citizens (particualrly those playing for notoriously cheap White Sox owner Charles Comiskey), this was a time before free agency or million dollar sports drink endorsements. Barry Bonds took steroids most likely because he was sick of playing second fiddle to the pure power hitters (many of whom were on performance enhancers) while he, as the best all around player of his time, toiled for a slightly less extravagant salary and slightly less notable endorsement deals.
Buck Weaver won his civil suit against White Sox owner Charles Comiskey for his lost salary for the 1921 season, and there were no legal documents implicating Weaver of any wrong doing. There is enough evidence against Bonds to warrant a criminal trial for obstruction of justice and perjury charges.
At the end, Barry Bonds should not be banned from baseball. Retroactive enforcement of rules should not take place, and it's simply MLB's fault for not getting on the drug testing trolley years before steroid and HGH use became such a widespread problem. However, his records should be wiped and his name removed from any future Hall of Fame ballot. The precedent is there, since Mark McGwire has not been inducted to the Hall, and is the only eligible 500 home run hitter not in the Hall. If voters will not induct McGwire for strong heresay, then the hard evidence against Bonds should warrant his removal.
Moreover, with the lack of hard evidence against Buck Weaver, the strong evidence which exists in his favour (his statistics from the World Series), and the fact that the only rule that he can be even reasonably accused of breaking didn't even exist at the time.
In fact, fuck Barry Bonds, he's not even that important.
Reinstate Buck Weaver.
Let it first be known that the author agrees with the lifetime ban imposed on Pete Rose by MLB. Many people ask what's the harm, since there's no proof of him ever betting against his own teams? Well here's the harm: he broke the most serious rule in baseball at the time.
No gambling is a serious rule because the influence of gambling can have a negative effect on the integrity of the game. But what is possible with gambling is always true with steroids and HGH. If you make yourself a better player by cheating, you should not be recognized alongside Hank Aaron. Like Ben Johnson, your records should be omitted. If Pete Rose can't get into the Hall of Fame for gambling, then many of the best players of our time should certainly not be afforded that honour. In fact we should see more players removed from the ballot than inducted.
And speaking of lifetime bans, let's talk about Buck Weaver and Barry Bonds.
Buck Weaver was banned from baseball along with 7 other players for involvement in the 1919 World Series fix. Barry Bonds has not been banned from baseball for his involvement in the BALCO scandal.
Buck Weaver hit .324 with no errors in the 1919 series, so there's no evidence that he intended throw any games. Barry Bonds hit 762 home runs in his career, with 5 of his 6 highest season totals coming after he turned 35, which happened the year when Greg Anderson of BALCO became his trainer.
Weaver's alleged actions put a smear on one team in one season. Bond's alleged actions put a smear on the most prestigious record in baseball.
In spite of the lack of evidence of any direct wrongdoing, Weaver was banned from baseball for his knowledge of the fix, and failure to report it... this rule was adopted by MLB after the 1919 Series and enforced retroactively in Weaver's case. Barry Bonds broke a rule for which there wasn't much enforcement at the time, and if it were to be enforced retroactively he would be suspended for 50 days.
Buck Weaver's team mates, the ones who took the pay off, did so because at the time baseball players barely scraped a living out of their salaries, and were treated like second class citizens (particualrly those playing for notoriously cheap White Sox owner Charles Comiskey), this was a time before free agency or million dollar sports drink endorsements. Barry Bonds took steroids most likely because he was sick of playing second fiddle to the pure power hitters (many of whom were on performance enhancers) while he, as the best all around player of his time, toiled for a slightly less extravagant salary and slightly less notable endorsement deals.
Buck Weaver won his civil suit against White Sox owner Charles Comiskey for his lost salary for the 1921 season, and there were no legal documents implicating Weaver of any wrong doing. There is enough evidence against Bonds to warrant a criminal trial for obstruction of justice and perjury charges.
At the end, Barry Bonds should not be banned from baseball. Retroactive enforcement of rules should not take place, and it's simply MLB's fault for not getting on the drug testing trolley years before steroid and HGH use became such a widespread problem. However, his records should be wiped and his name removed from any future Hall of Fame ballot. The precedent is there, since Mark McGwire has not been inducted to the Hall, and is the only eligible 500 home run hitter not in the Hall. If voters will not induct McGwire for strong heresay, then the hard evidence against Bonds should warrant his removal.
Moreover, with the lack of hard evidence against Buck Weaver, the strong evidence which exists in his favour (his statistics from the World Series), and the fact that the only rule that he can be even reasonably accused of breaking didn't even exist at the time.
In fact, fuck Barry Bonds, he's not even that important.
Reinstate Buck Weaver.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Drugs, drugs, drugs
So some surprising results this week. Apparently Alex Rodriguez, Miguel Tejada, and (gasp) Barry Bonds have all tested positive for performance enhancing drugs at some point over the last few years. What's really funny is how these developments have not garnered as much attention as Michael Phelps sucking on a bong.
To be fair, we haven't had any pictures of the baseballers' drug tests, and heaven forbid we put any real stock in a story that doesn't come with visual aids. But let's think on what this all means. Michael Phelps did something that at the most could bring on some minor charges and a little embarrassment. Marajuana doe not help you win.
Olympic Gold Medals: zero
To be fair, we haven't had any pictures of the baseballers' drug tests, and heaven forbid we put any real stock in a story that doesn't come with visual aids. But let's think on what this all means. Michael Phelps did something that at the most could bring on some minor charges and a little embarrassment. Marajuana doe not help you win.
Olympic Gold Medals: zeroAnd then there are these baseball players, who are making all sorts of profit with their drug use. Think about it, what would their salaries be without the performance enhancers? They would have made a lot, yes, but they owe a few million of their 8-digit salaries to the extra bulk and exercise recovery time afforded them by the cream or the clear or whatever you want to call it. For this, their crimes goes well beyond the integrity of the home run records. Oh yeah, they also perjured.
The Super Bowl
So three days after the Pro Bowl it comes down to a post about the Super Bowl. The author has been neglecting his duties again. However, the discussion today, albeit late, is in fact all about the big game, which had big plays, tough plays, and two comebacks.
It should be noted that in the past, the big game was just a name. A name that went hand in hand with some other terms for the NFL championship game, such as Super Bore, or Super Blowout. You see, through the 1980s and 1990s, your average Super Bowl was a good old fashioned shit kicking. In fact, through much of this period the NFC championship game was considered the real Super Bowl, as the teams involved were usually playing for the right to hammer the living bajeezus out of the Broncos or the Bills.
Then on January 25th, 1998 something happened. John Elway happened. The same John Elway who was on the list of great Super Bowl whipping boys such as Fran Tarkenton or Jim Kelly. The same John Elway who was destined to go down in history as a great player who just couldn't get it done in the big game. In the third quarter, the Broncos went on a 92-yard romp to take the lead. This drive was highlit by one of the most iconic plays in football. Skip to 1:20.
It's not that Elway had a great game. In fact, he didn't (the next time the Broncos had the ball he gave up an interception that allowed the Packers back into the game). It was simply John Elway doing what it takes to win the big one. And with this play a new era for the Super Bowl began.
In the years that followed the Super Bowl became an event that actually lived up to its billing. Two years later this happened:
The Patriots would win three championships in 4 years, with a three point margin for each victory. They would go into another with an 18-0 record, and go into the closing minutes with the lead:
Then this year, the Cardinals came back from a 13 point deficit in the 4th quarter, capped by this:
On its own that would have made for a pretty nice ending, but then:
So congratulations to the NFL. You've certainly come a long way from a string of Super Bowls where the most memorable play was Don Beebe hustling to knock the ball out of Leon Lett's hand, so the Bills could lose 52-17 instead of 59-17.
It should be noted that in the past, the big game was just a name. A name that went hand in hand with some other terms for the NFL championship game, such as Super Bore, or Super Blowout. You see, through the 1980s and 1990s, your average Super Bowl was a good old fashioned shit kicking. In fact, through much of this period the NFC championship game was considered the real Super Bowl, as the teams involved were usually playing for the right to hammer the living bajeezus out of the Broncos or the Bills.
Then on January 25th, 1998 something happened. John Elway happened. The same John Elway who was on the list of great Super Bowl whipping boys such as Fran Tarkenton or Jim Kelly. The same John Elway who was destined to go down in history as a great player who just couldn't get it done in the big game. In the third quarter, the Broncos went on a 92-yard romp to take the lead. This drive was highlit by one of the most iconic plays in football. Skip to 1:20.
It's not that Elway had a great game. In fact, he didn't (the next time the Broncos had the ball he gave up an interception that allowed the Packers back into the game). It was simply John Elway doing what it takes to win the big one. And with this play a new era for the Super Bowl began.
In the years that followed the Super Bowl became an event that actually lived up to its billing. Two years later this happened:
The Patriots would win three championships in 4 years, with a three point margin for each victory. They would go into another with an 18-0 record, and go into the closing minutes with the lead:
Then this year, the Cardinals came back from a 13 point deficit in the 4th quarter, capped by this:
On its own that would have made for a pretty nice ending, but then:
So congratulations to the NFL. You've certainly come a long way from a string of Super Bowls where the most memorable play was Don Beebe hustling to knock the ball out of Leon Lett's hand, so the Bills could lose 52-17 instead of 59-17.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
