All Hail Our Prodigal Basketball Players

Have you ever finished a hard sudoku and felt proud of yourself? Have you ever seen a friend or family member graduate college and feel proud of them? Have you ever seen anything that makes you feel proud and thought to yourself "I feel proud of this" and felt proud?

No? Then if you need something to feel proud of then David Haugh has this article to tell you what you can take pride in.

Chicago should be proud of Duke’s Scheyer
Senior point guard is a walking NCAA commercial, emphasizing the proper side of the hyphen in student-athlete

By David Haugh
March 29, 2010

...
Remember when they booed Jon Scheyer two years ago at the United Center after he appeared on the ice between periods at a Blackhawks game to shoot the puck?

Were you among those at Wrigley Field the past few summers whom Scheyer heard booing him upon sight at Cubs games because they still were bothered he chose Duke over Illinois?

Thanks for starting out your column with rhetorical questions, it makes these things so much easier to write. But no, I don't really remember Jon Scheyer being booed at the Blackhawks game. I think the Wirtz family was still keep the Hawks a tight-lipped secret still, so missing it isn't completely unlikely.

And I don't specifically recall the Cubs game booing, but I usually tune out the guests because 90% of the time its someone I don't care about. But if he was booed at these two events, I'm going to really need to be convinced of this story's premise. I don't think Chicagoans will necessarily feel proud because he grew up in the Chicagoland area.

By now, hopefully Chicago has gotten over it. The face of Duke basketball is ready for his national close-up this week in Indianapolis, and Scheyer's hometown should be more eager than ever to embrace him.

After all, Scheyer is a 6-foot-5, 190-pound NCAA commercial for all that's right about college basketball. He is this year's senior citizen of the NCAA tournament who most deserves your respect and attention, a student-athlete who stayed four years and emphasized the proper side of the hyphen.

Alright, I'll concede this- way to go kid. You've made the final four and its quite an accomplishment.

And he did selflessly not go to the NBA and make millions of dollars. Most likely because he doesn't have the talent to play in the NBA- not as a starter or even a bench player getting significant playing time.

Haugh is saying that Scheyer "deserves your respect and attention" because he didn't do something he couldn't do? (that makes sense, right?). I stayed in school and didn't go into the NBA and no one said I deserved respect and attention because of it. I didn't drop out of college to become a rock star as part of my band "The Platypus Project." Not because I didn't want to, but because I didn't have the talent.

The more it sunk in as Scheyer hugged teammates with his hat cocked to the side, the more I wondered whether Derrick Rose had experienced the depths of what Scheyer was feeling. The two get compared often because they rank among the top 10 prep basketball players to come out of Chicagoland and were a year apart.

Rose took Memphis to the NCAA title game as a freshman in 2008, and the Tigers lost to Kansas. That was Rose's team but not in the way Duke is Scheyer's. Rose had six months invested in that program; Scheyer endured four years.

This seems like a bad set-up. If Duke wins the championship, then some writer (David Haugh) might write the article that Jon Scheyer was a better college player than Derrick Rose. He'll have numbers to back it up to. Well, not averages or anything- but aggregate numbers. Scheyer's four year numbers will dwarf Rose's single season numbers and the bad article will be written.

I shouldn't write on hypothetical columns though-- back to this. Haugh is writing that there is some sort of comparison between Derrick Rose and Jon Scheyer. I'd go ahead and say the NBA experience - with the All-Star Appearance and Rookie of the Year and Playoff Series and Skyrocketing to NBA Stardom - might have a "depth of experience." But apparently if it isn't after four years in college, it doesn't matter. (Or whatever Haugh's point is, I'm still trying to figure that out.)


Rose, of course, was the No. 1 overall pick by the Bulls and now is among the top five point guards in the NBA with richness and stardom assured. He's just as terrific a role model and similarly gifted with a level head.

Yet if Scheyer leads Duke to a national title Monday night, I won't be certain who has had a more enriching, meaningful basketball career since high school.

I'll just be sure Chicago should claim one star as proudly as the other.

Role model? There's the obvious point that athletes are not role models. There was that little SAT thing with Derrick Rose too. Not the example a role model would set.

Even if Jon Scheyer leads Duke to a championship, he most likely will be thought of as "Remember Jon Scheyer? I wonder what happened to him" ten years from now. And then he'll be googled and that question will be quickly answered.

If you want to write something saying, "Hey, this guy is from Chicago. If you're still looking for someone to cheer for next weekend, consider rooting for him and his Duke teammates" then go ahead. Don't start comparing him to Derrick Rose and wonder who will have the more enriching, meaningful career. Its not even debatable let alone a good enough thought for a column in a major newspaper.

Only The Bulls

The groundswell of support to save Vinny Del Negro's job has come to a deafening roar. Actually, it's just Charles Barkley saying that VDN has done a better job than people give him credit for, and the Suntimes' John Jackson carrying the torch for the cause. Since I haven't picked on the Suntimes yet, its time to welcome them.


Vinny Del Negro merits third season
Del Negro has shown enough to be brought back
By John Jackson
March 25, 2010

Back in December, the future of coach Vinny Del Negro was a daily hot topic around the Bulls. The talk at the time was it was a matter of when -- not if -- he would be let go this season.
A winning streak in late December and early January shelved that speculation, and the issue of Del Negro's job status was pushed to the back burner.

Actually, it was Gar Forman not even giving VDN a vote of confidence after that losing streak that quieted the talk of firing. Most people just assumed it was only a question of when the Bulls would get a new coach.

The Bulls certainly have had their injury issues this season, whether it was Derrick Rose's ankle at the start of the season and sprained wrist earlier this month, Tyrus Thomas' broken arm, Kirk Hinrich's sprained thumb, Joakim Noah's plantar fasciitis or the strained right calf that has Luol Deng sidelined.

You can't possibly ask a coach to coach when things aren't ideal. While there have been injuries, you can still evaluate the coaching job done with the players available. Not necessarily win-loss record, but how the team executes their offense and plays defense.

Still, we've seen enough of Del Negro's work over the last two seasons to make a judgment.

He famously was hired with no coaching experience, and that was apparent at times during his first season on the bench. But Del Negro continued to grow throughout his rookie season, and there's no question he's better at making in-game changes and adjustments (and saving timeouts) this season.

He also has shown an ability to deal with adversity and stay focused on doing his job -- a trait that served him well when his job status was a daily topic. He deserves some credit for not losing the team during the losing streaks in December and earlier this month

We have seen enough to make a judgment. That whole "whoops, we're out of timeouts and could really use one right about now" thing in the playoffs was pretty bad. And not losing his team during long losing streaks? What do you consider losing a team? I'd consider two long losing streaks in a season losing a team.

I don't know what management's thinking is on bringing Del Negro back. The organization clearly wasn't ready to commit back in December, but there was no reason for them to make that decision then.

You're the Bulls beat writer, right? You don't have any sources you could call to get an inkling of an idea about VDN's future? You couldn't call the old beat writer and ask him? Or email Sam Smith on the Bulls' website- maybe he could help you in his next mailbag column.

While NBA coaches are let go for no good reason routinely, Del Negro has shown enough to earn another season. The perception held by many that he doesn't know what he's doing isn't reality.

You really didn't make a case for that in the article. There was some excuse making about injuries, but no proof of things he's done to show he knows what he's doing. Regardless of that, the question isn't whether the Bulls make the playoffs - that bar's set way too low in the Eastern Conference. The question is will the coach help make Derrick Rose the best player he can be, or at least stay out of his way.

How Dare the Bears Get Rid Of A Player

Alex Brown is done as a Bear. Are the Bears worse without him? Probably. Is he the difference between the Bears winning the Super Bowl and not? No. One of the 3 dozen Tribune Bears reporters had to write a "How could the Bears get rid of a player that was a core piece of a team that hasn't reached the playoffs in three years - a team that needs to completely change everything about their roster, management and ownership" article.

To be clear: I like Alex Brown as a player and don't think the Bears are better without him. However, he really never was good enough to be the difference between and decent and good or a good and a great team. While he's a good player, he can be replaced.

Haugh: Sacking Alex Brown would throw Bears for a loss
by David Haugh
March 26, 2010

Somebody please tell me which McCaskey family member Alex Brown forgot to send a Christmas card.

Or did Brown take Ted Phillips' parking spot at Halas Hall or cut in front of Jerry Angelo in the lunch line?

Because the Bears' interest in trading or releasing Brown -- news broken Friday morning by Tribune reporter Brad Biggs -- cannot possibly be a football decision. That's absurd. It would trim $5 million off the 2010 payroll, sure. It would remove a $5.5 million salary off the books in 2011, yes. It even would make the Bears' average age younger on a defense getting gray around the temple.

But getting rid of Brown makes the Bears better as a football team? Let us hope nobody tries to insult our football intelligence by selling us that nonsense.

The Bears have made a roster decision: since they're getting rid of a player it has to be wrong. After stating it's wrong, Haugh lists a good reason to get rid of Brown- $10.5 million in salary that can be spent elsewhere.

Then of course there's the "how does this make the Bears a better team?" line. Dan Pompei loaned it out for this article.

NFL people lie all the time. So if you hear in the next month Phillips or Angelo or Lovie Smith try to explain how the Bears defense will improve without Brown, it will be one of the biggest whoppers they have tried to perpetuate in Chicago. This is no way to keep the offseason momentum going. In the context of a football game, this is throwing an interception while trying to run out the clock. Just dumb.

Apparently the Bears are getting rid of a 23 year old Reggie White and not a 30 year old average to above average defensive end who's best days (7 sacks in 2006) most likely are behind him.

Don't confuse this description of Brown as a perennial Pro Bowl player or an exaggeration of his skills. Brown never has been a regular double-digit sack guy and other ends have piled up bigger numbers. But if you care about chemistry and leadership and dependability and all the things Smith espouses, you pay Brown according to his contract because it's worth every penny. There isn't a more stand-up guy in the Bears' locker room or organization.

So you think people might think you're overreacting to this move? I don't believe it. You realize Brown is a average player, and you bring out the big guns. "Chemistry and leadership and dependability." He was on this team last year, right? A 7-9 team? Think how bad it would've been without him and his valuable chemistry and leadership and dependability.

Show up after any Bears' tough loss, when Brown is the one willing to honestly and eloquently face whatever problems surfaced the previous 60 minutes while many of his higher-paid and visible teammates offer grunts and excuses. That's difficult to put a price on that if you're the Bears

Obviously not. The Bears have put a price on this- less than $10.5 million over the next 2 years.

Gush all you want about the potential of Anderson and Idonije or Jarron Gilbert or the next draft pick to tease Bears fans. I'll take the production Brown offers all day, every day -- which is how often you get Brown's effort

Unless the new guy is better-- then you'll never think of Brown again.

The Bears like to wait for other teams to determine the market value of players. As Biggs reported in the Tribune, free-agent defensive end Kyle Vanden Bosch just signed a four-year, $26 million contract with the Lions that included $11 million in guarantees. It's possible Brown would become a richer man if the Bears cut him loose. That's a good debate.

It actually seems like a boring debate. Well, we will give it a shot. Salary obviously equals talent. Think how good Brown would be if he made $12 million a year! Or if a team goes crazy and pays him $20 million a year (think Raiders). And I know Haugh would never complain about an organization spending money badly. Until Alfonso Soriano is hitting .217 in May.

Bears Season Never Ends

Lovie Smith spoke at the winter meetings and had some odd thoughts. This one is focused on him and not the writer (I'll get you later Mr Pompei).





Smith doesn’t see diminished role for Hester or Olsen
...

"I don't know whose plan that was," Smith said. "Mike had been here a few days, you kind of hit him with questions. He likes the potential of Devin as a full-time receiver. I don't see him (getting fewer snaps). Not right now.

Lovie is talking about new offensive coordinator Mike Martz. Mike Martz had previously stated that he sees Hester as Az-Zahir Hakim in this system. Hakim was the slot/3rd receiver for the Rams, and his best year was 734 yards receiving and 4 tds. Not exactly a great full time receiver model.

"He's going to be a highly productive guy in any offense," Smith said. "He's faster than most tight ends out there. He can block the way most other tight ends can, but in the passing game he is a step ahead.

Lovie is talking about Greg Olsen here. The tight end in Martz' offense (as stated before) needs to block. Lovie says that Olsen can block like the other tight ends, which I really believe after the Bears spent $15 million ($6.1 guaranteed) on blocking specialist Brandon Manumaleuna/human wall (Note to self: check spelling or hope no one cares. Or no one ever reads this)

It wouldn't be a bad thing if we end up with a veteran this year," Smith said. "That has nothing to do with Caleb Hanie. We think he is a heck of a quarterback. But when you go with two quarterbacks, it is a little scary each week.

This is actually a good thought- just because quarterbacks under Martz tend not to last 16 games. And a viewing note: if Cutler gets hurt please change the channel and watch something else. Any pursuing offense will hurt your eyes, brain and soul.

Phil Rogers Time

I need to post more, but here's entry #2 from the Tribune's Phil Rogers. Here he talks about formers Cubs managers managing on other teams. For a while, the Cubs were the last stop for managers until Dusty Baker joined the Reds and Jim Riggleman joined the Nationals.

Long-departed manager getting second shot with Nationals
...

Riggleman points to the improvement of the Cubs' franchise for helping the standing of those who have worked there.

The premise of Riggleman getting a chance now is the Cubs being good now. Apparently the Cubs are now a prestigious enough organization that a downtrodden manager can finally find a job with the worst team in baseball. It also has nothing to do with any of the former managers' abilities apparently.

Riggleman, 57, oversaw one of the most dramatic turnarounds in the franchise's history, winning a one-game playoff over the Giants for a wild-card spot into the '98 playoffs one year after a 68-94 season. He was fired after injuries to Kerry Wood and Kevin Tapani contributed to a 95-loss season in '99 and waited almost 10 years to get another chance to manage.

The Cubs did have a resurgent year. Not mentioned here is the breakout out year of the magically more muscular Sammy Sosa. Medicine and the hop helped propel the Cubs to the turn around.

There is also an inference that injuries were the reason Riggleman didn't get a job until last season (Wood and Tapani Out = 10 years of no being a manager). I don't recall a healthy Kevin Tapani being good enough to be the difference between a playoff and a 95 loss team.

Riggleman, whose team is 3-12 this spring, is looking forward to the chance to manage at Wrigley Field again. He knows this is a critical season for Piniella, who is trying to rebuild the mojo the Cubs seemed to have before being swept in the first round of the playoffs in '07 and '08.

Thanks for the spring training record- it really helps establish Riggleman's abilities as a manager. We all remember the spring training record of the Yankees last year, right?

And the real problem with the '09 Cubs was mojo. I had been thinking it was Soriano hitting in the low .200s and Milton Bradley getting off to a bad start and Geo Soto being overweight and bad and not having a major league caliber replacement for the hurt Ramirez and Kevin Gregg blowing saves.

I was watching the wrong team this whole time. They just needed their mojo back. Yeah baby. Unless the Austin Powers reference is too dated. I personally like "How Piniella Got His Groove Back" a little more.

He [Riggleman] believes the negativity of fans takes on a life of its own.

"It's tangible,'' he said. "It's a tangible feeling. In '99, when things started to go bad, it was tangible. We got the feeling, ‘Oh, God, we're not going to turn this around.' "

Why not end the article blaming the fans. I mean, the booing must be worth about 20 losses according to my advanced algorithm. That would've possibly made the Cubs a playoff team and saved Riggleman's job. But time was not so kind.

Don't worry- Riggleman isn't going to be able to hear the collective booing of the dozen fans in DC.

Easy Picking

After my welcome post, I decide to check the Chicago Tribune Sports for some articles. This article on Greg Olsen written by Dan Pompei (who I regrettably forgot in the welcome post). So here goes: maiden voyage.

Bears foolish if they dump Olsen
by Dan Pompei

Explain how the Bears are better without Greg Olsen.

• That's your first line? Okay- they replace him with a tight end that can do one or more of the following: block, break a tackle, outrun anyone and/or outjump a defensive back
• Trade Olsen for draft pick. Draft player better than Olsen. Explanation finished. No need for the rest of the article. But he continues...
  

Martz wants his tight ends to be blockers first. Olsen is a receiver first. But that doesn't mean he can't have value in a Martz offense.

• Actually, that's exactly what it means. Martz even said in an interview on The Score that if a tight end can't block then they should just put an actual receiver in. No blocking = no playing time = no value in a Martz Offense.
  

It's true a tight end never has been a big producer under Martz. But Martz never has had a tight end like Olsen. When he coached Vernon Davis for the 49ers, Davis wasn't as far along as Olsen is. Davis just started finding his groove in 2009.

• Actually he's had a tight end like Olsen. He's a tight end better than Olsen. That tight end was Vernon Davis. Part of the reason Davis stuck around was because he could block - which really is the whole point.

Even if the Martz-Olsen marriage is destined to be a rocky one, it still doesn't make sense to trade Olsen now. There is a chance, some would say a good one, the Bears will have a completely new coaching staff next year.

• Well, if the marriage is going to be rocky and the coaching staff will be gone then why would they keep him? Martz' offense succeeding is the only chance Lovie & Co. have of staying. Olsen won't be used in this offense and has some of trade value. Of course it makes sense to trade him.

The Bears don't need to extend Olsen's deal just yet. They just need to keep him and throw him the ball.

• If its imperative that the Bears nurture and develop this 4th year player- why don't they extend him? If he doesn't progress, his trade value will be next to nothing- like those weird orange and black taffies on halloween. Nobody wants them. What are the odds of that happening in a Martz offense?
• Pompei wants the Bears to hoard-- hang on to things they can get rid when it makes little sense to do so. Like that thing sitting in your basement that you don't use (you know what it is). You might use it some day and get a lot of use out of it, but for now its just sitting in your basement getting engulfed by mildew. Then you hang onto other things and all of the sudden every room is full of empty boxes, cans, non-digital tvs, free dvd sets of Studio 60 On the Sunset Strip and then the police are evicting you from your home. Or perhaps I've killed the analogy. Back to the Bears: Olsen's still in good condition- put him on ebay and get what you can from it.
  

Thus endith the first real post.

A Simple Welcome

In the spirit of the late great firejoemorgan.com, I'm going to examine poorly written, poory thought out, poorly executed sports columns. Then I'm going to make fun of them in a way that's poorly written, poorly thought out and poorly executed.

Being in Chicago, I have plenty of material- Morrissey, Telander, Slezak and anything David Haugh writes. Hopefully I can put together something entertaining.

Enjoy