The Warriors have played 43 games. They've won 26 of them. The season is more than half-way through and the Warriors are winning at a .605 clip, putting them on a pace to win 50 games. These are facts. This is actually happening.
And they're not just doing it against the league's worst. They're 13-7 against winning teams. They're 12-11 on the road. They've beaten one title contender, the Clippers, 3 times. They are the only team in the entire league who have beaten the Clippers, Heat, and Thunder, after handing OKC its first loss of the season when leading after 3 quarters. They just finished a stretch of 15 games, 12 of which were against playoff teams (if the season ended today), and 2 against would-be just-miss teams. They went 8-7 over that stretch, keeping them afloat in the upper echelon of the Western Conference, and they now look ahead to a favorable schedule that includes 16 of their final 22 at home.
Jump on this bandwagon now. The Bay Area will be going bananas for this team come playoff time.
Even more reason to be excited: they've done all of this without their starting center, Andrew Bogut. You may recall he's the guy they got last year when the Warriors traded their best player at the time in Monta Ellis. I love Monta, and he's having a fine season with the Bucks, but it sure doesn't look great for his stock now that the W's are doing so well without him, especially when they are without the player he was traded for. It's a bigger case of addition-by-subtraction than when the Giants finally traded Bengie Molina to make room for Buster Posey. Even if Bogut is a lost cause, did the Warriors still win that trade? Monta Ellis shareholders can't be happy that that's even a question.
They say Bogut is inching towards a return, although I remain cautiously pessimistic. It seems to me that these giants simply do not fully heal. Their bodies are just too big, and create too much stress to play basketball. Greg Oden, Yao Ming, even Andrew Bynum. I would not be surprised if Bogut ended up in the same group. But if you believe the Warriors press, his return is a matter of weeks away. And that likely would make this good team even better. Right now Festus Ezeli is the starting center, and he's pretty much a zero on the offensive end. About once a game he shows off his stone hands by fumbling a Curry dish-off-a-drive. Bogut will give them another dimension offensively, without sacrificing rebounds and defense. The one potential negative to his return has to do with chemistry, as there is an argument to be made centered around not fixing it if it ain't broke. After all, the Warriors crunch-time line-up of Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Jarret Jack, David Lee, and Carl Landry has been very effective. Maybe you don't want to mess with that.
So in the absence of a reliable center, how have the Warriors been doing it? Well, Lee and Curry have been playing at an elite level. I made the case for their All-Star selections a few days ago. Unfortunately, the coaches must not have read what I said about Curry, since only Lee was rewarded with a spot. Indeed a shame, since Curry is the team's MVP, although you could even make a (flimsy) case for Jack as an MVP, given how many times he's bailed out the team down the stretch. He and Landry are both candidates for 6th man of the year (how many teams have ever had two?).
But the most credit should probably go to Mark Jackson. In just his second year coaching, he's transformed this team from one in which defending was an afterthought, to one that grinds out wins with stingy defense and solid rebounding. The Warriors are the 6th best team in the NBA in terms of opponent FG%. Two years ago they were 21st and last year, 20th. Even after struggling on the boards the past couple games, the Warriors are 8th in the league in rebound differential. They had been dead last for the previous FOUR seasons. They are doing things that Warrior fans like myself just didn't even know were possible.
The Warriors haven't just gotten better. They've fundamentally altered their style to a winning formula. Jackson has instituted a culture change that one would expect would take a half-decade to produce results. For that, he'll no doubt get a lot of votes for Coach of the Year, and rightfully so. Back when Don Nelson was running the team, I always wanted the Warriors to be good, but I didn't want them to change, fearing that abandoning the high-paced, offense-only style would produce a team that wasn't any fun to watch. I'm happy to be dead wrong.
If you're not watching this team on the regular, you're missing a lot of excitement. Like I said, you're late, but there's still room on the bandwagon.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Will the Warriors End All-Star Drought?
The last time a Golden State Warrior played in the NBA All-Star Game, people my age were slow dancing to No Doubt's "Don't Speak". That song was likely sandwiched between Hanson's "MMMBop" and followed by Aqua's "Barbie Girl". Such was the context when Latrell Sprewell was selected in 1997. Sixteen years later--the NBA's longest such drought--the Warriors have not had a player represent them among the NBA's best. It's a fairly staggering accomplishment. But this year, with David Lee and Stephen Curry propelling the W's to the West's 5th best record, that streak has a very strong chance of ending.
Those two have been playing at an elite level, and frankly, it's a shock that there's a chance they both won't make it. But the West is stacked with talent, and there are only so many spots on the rosters. The starters were voted in by the fans, leaving space for two guards, three forwards, and two wild cards for reserves. Picked by the coaches, the reserves will be announced tonight.
David Lee's competition comes in the form of Tim Duncan, Marc Gasol, Zach Randolph, and LaMarcus Aldridge. Based on what I'm reading, Duncan is a lock, having his best and most efficient season in years. Gasol is perhaps the league's best defender, plays on an elite team, and is no slouch on offense, though he does fall short of Lee's numbers. Aldridge edges Lee in scoring by 1 point per game, but Lee has the edge in rebounds per game (by 2) and assists per game (by 1), plus shoots at a higher percentage. Randolph out-rebounds Lee, but falls short everywhere else. It's also hard to ignore the fact that Lee leads the NBA in 20-point-10-rebound games. I say it's an injustice if he's not selected.
Curry probably faces even stiffer competition in Russell Westbrook, James Harden, and Tony Parker. Westbrook and Harden are consensus Top-15 players in the league; they're getting in. That leaves Curry fighting for a wild card spot. Watching this guy night in and night out, it's nearly unfathomable to think he might not be an All-Star. The guy takes over stretches of games on a routine basis. He's 8th in the league in scoring, and 14th in assists. He's the league's most prolific 3-point shooter, making an astonishing 45% on 7 attempts per game (putting him 2nd in the NBA in 3-pointers made). Tony Parker has Curry beat in assists (7.4 to 6.6 per game) and FG% (52% to 44%). But Curry plays more minutes, scores more, and grabs more rebounds. Only two other guys in the NBA can claim they score 20+ points, dish 6+ assists, and grab 4+ rebounds per game: LeBron James and Russell Westbrook. It's a very tough call. Maybe they both can get in.
It's not as if the Warriors haven't had deserving candidates since '97. I've been infuriated in previous years when Monta Ellis was snubbed, despite his gaudy scoring numbers. But respect in this league comes with winning, and that's the difference this year. Ellis's dreaded stigma of "good player on a bad team" cost him year after year. The Warriors are a team committed to defense this year, and it's translated into a lot more wins. Curry and Lee are by no means elite defenders, but there's no question they've made improvements, and their overall attitudes and leadership should also be considered as part of the reason for the improved team record.
Coaches: please don't give me a reason to revisit "Barbie Girl" again next year.
P.S. Here's a link to Bill Simmons's BS Report Podcast in which he interviewed Lee and Curry. It was recorded in early January after they beat the Clippers. A good interview -- not just your standard questions and answers.
Those two have been playing at an elite level, and frankly, it's a shock that there's a chance they both won't make it. But the West is stacked with talent, and there are only so many spots on the rosters. The starters were voted in by the fans, leaving space for two guards, three forwards, and two wild cards for reserves. Picked by the coaches, the reserves will be announced tonight.
David Lee's competition comes in the form of Tim Duncan, Marc Gasol, Zach Randolph, and LaMarcus Aldridge. Based on what I'm reading, Duncan is a lock, having his best and most efficient season in years. Gasol is perhaps the league's best defender, plays on an elite team, and is no slouch on offense, though he does fall short of Lee's numbers. Aldridge edges Lee in scoring by 1 point per game, but Lee has the edge in rebounds per game (by 2) and assists per game (by 1), plus shoots at a higher percentage. Randolph out-rebounds Lee, but falls short everywhere else. It's also hard to ignore the fact that Lee leads the NBA in 20-point-10-rebound games. I say it's an injustice if he's not selected.
Curry probably faces even stiffer competition in Russell Westbrook, James Harden, and Tony Parker. Westbrook and Harden are consensus Top-15 players in the league; they're getting in. That leaves Curry fighting for a wild card spot. Watching this guy night in and night out, it's nearly unfathomable to think he might not be an All-Star. The guy takes over stretches of games on a routine basis. He's 8th in the league in scoring, and 14th in assists. He's the league's most prolific 3-point shooter, making an astonishing 45% on 7 attempts per game (putting him 2nd in the NBA in 3-pointers made). Tony Parker has Curry beat in assists (7.4 to 6.6 per game) and FG% (52% to 44%). But Curry plays more minutes, scores more, and grabs more rebounds. Only two other guys in the NBA can claim they score 20+ points, dish 6+ assists, and grab 4+ rebounds per game: LeBron James and Russell Westbrook. It's a very tough call. Maybe they both can get in.
It's not as if the Warriors haven't had deserving candidates since '97. I've been infuriated in previous years when Monta Ellis was snubbed, despite his gaudy scoring numbers. But respect in this league comes with winning, and that's the difference this year. Ellis's dreaded stigma of "good player on a bad team" cost him year after year. The Warriors are a team committed to defense this year, and it's translated into a lot more wins. Curry and Lee are by no means elite defenders, but there's no question they've made improvements, and their overall attitudes and leadership should also be considered as part of the reason for the improved team record.
Coaches: please don't give me a reason to revisit "Barbie Girl" again next year.
P.S. Here's a link to Bill Simmons's BS Report Podcast in which he interviewed Lee and Curry. It was recorded in early January after they beat the Clippers. A good interview -- not just your standard questions and answers.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Open Letter to the BBWAA
To the members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, specifically those who did not vote for Barry Bonds to join the Hall of Fame:
Shame on you. Shame on you for keeping one of the most interesting and talented ballplayers out of the museum of Baseball history. Shame on you for imposing your own morals on the rest of fans. Shame on you for making assumptions you cannot confirm, and for displaying subjective inconsistencies that render your integrity as journalists questionable, at best.
This isn't about my favorite baseball player of all time being denied entry into the Hall of Fame. This is about the Hall of Fame becoming meaningless. We now have a Hall of Fame that lacks mention of the all-time hits leader (Pete Rose), perhaps the greatest pitcher of all time (Roger Clemens), and the all-time home run king (Barry Bonds), who also is arguably the greatest player of all time. It is now a museum that lacks the legitimacy that would make it worth visting.
Let's assume that Barry Bonds did use performance enhancing drugs, starting after the 1998 season (which is the consensus on when he allegedly started). Despite the fact that he had the numbers to be a no-doubt Hall of Famer before that, you didn't vote for him. Let's examine some possible reasons why. Was he a cheater? No. To anyone who says that Bonds and players like him cheated, I ask you: what rule did he break? All the stuff he took was not on any sort of banned substances list at the time he was allegedly taking it. That's a fact. He didn't break any baseball rules. Unlike Hall of Famers such as Gaylord Perry, who have admitted doctoring baseballs to produce an advantage (which is specifically against the rules). But, you may counter, the Hall of Fame instructs writers to base voting on character and integrity along with performance on the field. Even if juiced players weren't breaking any rules, surely they must have known it was wrong. Are you really going to place more weight on character/integrity than on on-field performance? That doesn't fit with past precedent. Here we have the most dominant player the game has seen since Babe Ruth, but you are going to keep him out because he was morally questionable? I guess we better remove Ty Cobb from the Hall then, because he was a documented dirty player and a racist. Bonds was never friendly with the media, but to punish him for not being your friend is nothing short of childish.
And let's not forget that performing enhancing drugs have been part of the game for longer than it seems you care to remember. Amphetamines, or "greenies" as they were known, were commonly used (before being banned in 2006) going all the way back to the 1960's. That means our heroes like Willie Mays and Hank Aaron were getting an extra pep in their step when they really shouldn't have been. Not only that, but they never had to face pitchers who were on steroids, as Barry Bonds and other modern hitters did.
But as I said, this is not just about Barry Bonds. This is also about McGwire, and Sosa, and Clemens, and Piazza, and Palmiero, and A-Rod (in the future), and all the people who dominated during this era. No one player illustrates the ridiculousness of your holier-than-thou stance than Jeff Bagwell does. He had over 2300 hits, over 2500 RBI, and 449 HRs. Looking at more advanced metrics, he had a career OPS+ of 149 (Mike Schmidt's was 147). His career WAR sits at 76.7, ahead of guys like Pete Rose, Joe DiMaggio, and Robin Yount (per Baseballreference.com). He's one of the best first basemen of all time, and he's never been linked to any PEDs. But because he was big and bulky, and played in the Steroid Era, he only got 60% of the vote (75% is needed to get in). Forty percent did not vote for him, mostly based on assumption. And when Ken Griffey Jr. appears on the ballot, he will likely get voted in, based on the assumption that he "did it clean". I'm not saying Ken Griffey Jr. took PEDs. All I'm saying is that we cannot know for sure. Steroids were so pervasive during this era, it's nearly pointless to try to figure out who did what. Remember, it's not just the big home run hitters -- we got a stark reminder of that just this past year when Melky Cabrera got suspended. Also note that he just got a raise.
As Ray Ratto recently pointed out, it is not your duty, responsibility, or even your right to keep the game "pure". Throughout baseball history, players have played under the rules set by Major League Baseball, not rules set by you. Your job is to cover the sport objectively, and without assumption. Speaking of your job, the entire Steroid Era was a gigantic swing-and-a-miss on the part of the baseball media. More accurately I should say you were caught looking on a fastball right down the middle. I'm not saying responsibility for PED use lies with the media, but this was going on right under your noses. You are the ones with the everyday access. You are the ones who had relationships with players, coaches, GMs, and owners. You are the ones with the jobs to uncover the truth and inform the public on what's happening in the sport. So where were you with your moral objections in 1998? And now you wish to sweep this entire era of baseball under the rug as if it never happened.
Should we do the same for the pre-1945 racially segregated era? Think about it -- for every one of our heroes from that era, there is another equally legendary African-American ballplayer we don't even know about. So maybe no one from that era should get in the Hall of Fame. We don't know how Babe Ruth would have done if he had to face pitchers like Satchel Paige. Just like we don't know how Willie Mays would have done if he faced Pedro Martinez. Baseball is a game of eras. The best we can do is compare players to their peers. In a world where not everything can be known, due process--based on facts--is all we have.
And I ask you this: how confident are you that the Hall is not already sullied with a steroid user? Along with his power bat, Ricky Henderson made his money stealing bases during a time when sprinters were not exactly known for their clean urine. Nolan Ryan shared a clubhouse with Jose Canseco, Juan Gonzalez, and Rafael Palmiero; and he relied on a dominating fastball well into his 40's. The only other pitcher to dominate on the strength of a fastball at that advanced age? Roger Clemens. Again, I'm not saying these guys took PEDs (the lack of evidence would make that accusation stupid). I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that we don't know if they did or not, and that anecdotal evidence can be applied to anyone. What we do know is that these guys played well above their competition, and they deserve to be recognized for it, even if it's noted that they played in an era where some players had an edge over others. To doll out that recognition based on hunches and incomplete evidence is simply unprofessional.
When you get your ballot next year, acknowledge the fact that you are not some mythical Guardian of the Game (another Ratto phrase). Take your arrogance down one notch and admit that neither you nor anyone can know who took performance-enhancing drugs, and how much it may have helped those who did. Take a dose of reality and realize that the people you are crusading against never broke any rules of the game. Most importantly, stop denying baseball fans the history museum they deserve.
Sincerely,
Mike Meade
P.S. Let's also remember that the door was blown open on the Steroids Era by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams in their book, "Game of Shadows". A lot of the accusations in that book are based on leaked grand jury testimony. That's right: illegally obtained materials that enhanced the performance of these writers.
Shame on you. Shame on you for keeping one of the most interesting and talented ballplayers out of the museum of Baseball history. Shame on you for imposing your own morals on the rest of fans. Shame on you for making assumptions you cannot confirm, and for displaying subjective inconsistencies that render your integrity as journalists questionable, at best.
This isn't about my favorite baseball player of all time being denied entry into the Hall of Fame. This is about the Hall of Fame becoming meaningless. We now have a Hall of Fame that lacks mention of the all-time hits leader (Pete Rose), perhaps the greatest pitcher of all time (Roger Clemens), and the all-time home run king (Barry Bonds), who also is arguably the greatest player of all time. It is now a museum that lacks the legitimacy that would make it worth visting.
Let's assume that Barry Bonds did use performance enhancing drugs, starting after the 1998 season (which is the consensus on when he allegedly started). Despite the fact that he had the numbers to be a no-doubt Hall of Famer before that, you didn't vote for him. Let's examine some possible reasons why. Was he a cheater? No. To anyone who says that Bonds and players like him cheated, I ask you: what rule did he break? All the stuff he took was not on any sort of banned substances list at the time he was allegedly taking it. That's a fact. He didn't break any baseball rules. Unlike Hall of Famers such as Gaylord Perry, who have admitted doctoring baseballs to produce an advantage (which is specifically against the rules). But, you may counter, the Hall of Fame instructs writers to base voting on character and integrity along with performance on the field. Even if juiced players weren't breaking any rules, surely they must have known it was wrong. Are you really going to place more weight on character/integrity than on on-field performance? That doesn't fit with past precedent. Here we have the most dominant player the game has seen since Babe Ruth, but you are going to keep him out because he was morally questionable? I guess we better remove Ty Cobb from the Hall then, because he was a documented dirty player and a racist. Bonds was never friendly with the media, but to punish him for not being your friend is nothing short of childish.
And let's not forget that performing enhancing drugs have been part of the game for longer than it seems you care to remember. Amphetamines, or "greenies" as they were known, were commonly used (before being banned in 2006) going all the way back to the 1960's. That means our heroes like Willie Mays and Hank Aaron were getting an extra pep in their step when they really shouldn't have been. Not only that, but they never had to face pitchers who were on steroids, as Barry Bonds and other modern hitters did.
But as I said, this is not just about Barry Bonds. This is also about McGwire, and Sosa, and Clemens, and Piazza, and Palmiero, and A-Rod (in the future), and all the people who dominated during this era. No one player illustrates the ridiculousness of your holier-than-thou stance than Jeff Bagwell does. He had over 2300 hits, over 2500 RBI, and 449 HRs. Looking at more advanced metrics, he had a career OPS+ of 149 (Mike Schmidt's was 147). His career WAR sits at 76.7, ahead of guys like Pete Rose, Joe DiMaggio, and Robin Yount (per Baseballreference.com). He's one of the best first basemen of all time, and he's never been linked to any PEDs. But because he was big and bulky, and played in the Steroid Era, he only got 60% of the vote (75% is needed to get in). Forty percent did not vote for him, mostly based on assumption. And when Ken Griffey Jr. appears on the ballot, he will likely get voted in, based on the assumption that he "did it clean". I'm not saying Ken Griffey Jr. took PEDs. All I'm saying is that we cannot know for sure. Steroids were so pervasive during this era, it's nearly pointless to try to figure out who did what. Remember, it's not just the big home run hitters -- we got a stark reminder of that just this past year when Melky Cabrera got suspended. Also note that he just got a raise.
As Ray Ratto recently pointed out, it is not your duty, responsibility, or even your right to keep the game "pure". Throughout baseball history, players have played under the rules set by Major League Baseball, not rules set by you. Your job is to cover the sport objectively, and without assumption. Speaking of your job, the entire Steroid Era was a gigantic swing-and-a-miss on the part of the baseball media. More accurately I should say you were caught looking on a fastball right down the middle. I'm not saying responsibility for PED use lies with the media, but this was going on right under your noses. You are the ones with the everyday access. You are the ones who had relationships with players, coaches, GMs, and owners. You are the ones with the jobs to uncover the truth and inform the public on what's happening in the sport. So where were you with your moral objections in 1998? And now you wish to sweep this entire era of baseball under the rug as if it never happened.
Should we do the same for the pre-1945 racially segregated era? Think about it -- for every one of our heroes from that era, there is another equally legendary African-American ballplayer we don't even know about. So maybe no one from that era should get in the Hall of Fame. We don't know how Babe Ruth would have done if he had to face pitchers like Satchel Paige. Just like we don't know how Willie Mays would have done if he faced Pedro Martinez. Baseball is a game of eras. The best we can do is compare players to their peers. In a world where not everything can be known, due process--based on facts--is all we have.
And I ask you this: how confident are you that the Hall is not already sullied with a steroid user? Along with his power bat, Ricky Henderson made his money stealing bases during a time when sprinters were not exactly known for their clean urine. Nolan Ryan shared a clubhouse with Jose Canseco, Juan Gonzalez, and Rafael Palmiero; and he relied on a dominating fastball well into his 40's. The only other pitcher to dominate on the strength of a fastball at that advanced age? Roger Clemens. Again, I'm not saying these guys took PEDs (the lack of evidence would make that accusation stupid). I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that we don't know if they did or not, and that anecdotal evidence can be applied to anyone. What we do know is that these guys played well above their competition, and they deserve to be recognized for it, even if it's noted that they played in an era where some players had an edge over others. To doll out that recognition based on hunches and incomplete evidence is simply unprofessional.
When you get your ballot next year, acknowledge the fact that you are not some mythical Guardian of the Game (another Ratto phrase). Take your arrogance down one notch and admit that neither you nor anyone can know who took performance-enhancing drugs, and how much it may have helped those who did. Take a dose of reality and realize that the people you are crusading against never broke any rules of the game. Most importantly, stop denying baseball fans the history museum they deserve.
Sincerely,
Mike Meade
P.S. Let's also remember that the door was blown open on the Steroids Era by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams in their book, "Game of Shadows". A lot of the accusations in that book are based on leaked grand jury testimony. That's right: illegally obtained materials that enhanced the performance of these writers.
Monday, January 7, 2013
A Rivalry Renewed
With the Packers man-handling the Vikings in the Wild Card Playoff round last Saturday, they will now travel to San Francisco to face the 49ers for a trip to the NFC Championship Game.
Oh. Baby.
The 49er Dynasty of the 1980's is a massive source of pride, but I was born too late to really enjoy it. Their rivalry with the Cowboys in the 1990's was great, and left me with a healthy hatred of "America's Team" that still hangs on today. But it was the rivalry with the Packers of the late '90's that took hold of me in the most emotional way, and gave me my favorite football memory of all time. The media began its shameful love affair with Brett Favre during this time, taking away attention from the much-deserving Steve Young, who had turned in the greatest SuperBowl performance of all time in 1994. But in 3 straight seasons, the Pack ousted the 49ers from the playoffs. It was, as they say, on. So to get that monkey off their backs in 1999 with The Catch II ("OWENS! OWENS! OWENS!"), well that was just peachy.
The Packers got the 49ers again in 2002 to go up 4-1 in playoff meetings, so there is some work to do to turn the tables. They can start this Saturday, as a new chapter in this history book will be written. And the '9ers already showed they can beat their rivals when they handily upset the Packers in Week 1, in Green Bay. Packers fans no doubt have some excuse as to why that game went the way it did, and the 49ers are banged up, so it will be no easy task. They are at home this time, and they also have a different quarterback, which apparently is an important position.
By now I think we can agree that Kaepernick is a (probably minor) upgrade over Alex Smith, right? He lacks experience, which could turn out to be huge, but it will be tough to measure. What we can know is that he can throw the ball faster and farther, and he's more mobile (although people do seem to be forgetting that Smith could run the ball, too). Anyway, my point is, I think we know pretty much what we are getting from most of this 49er team. From my limited football knowledge, I'd say there are two 49ers on which the game will hinge: Justin Smith and David Akers.
It was never a secret that Aldon Smith relied heavily on Justin Smith while he was piling up the sacks this year. But since Justin went down with a torn tricep tendon, Aldon hasn't added to his sack total once. More frightening is that it's easy to tell the defense as a whole has suffered. Through the first 13.5 games this year, the '9ers gave up an average 3.3 points per quarter (that's counting the two overtimes against St. Louis and the first half of the Pats game). Since Halftime of that Pats game (roughly when Smith went out), the 49ers have allowed an average of 8.6 points per quarter. (That's not as good). It looks like Smith will play this weekend, but there's no way to tell how effective he will be. The 49ers will need to get consistent pressure on Aaron Rogers to stop that high-powered offense. I'm not sure they can do it with 50% of Justin Smith.
Meanwhile, David Akers has gone from one of the best in the game to one of the worst. Hopefully he'll continue doing his best Tim Lincecum impression and have a complete revival in the playoffs. The 49er formula of grinding out wins with stingy defense, conservative offense, and winning the field position battle doesn't really work without a lock-down field-goal kicker. That's yet another reason why Kaepernick may be the better choice. Still, probably my favorite moment of this regular season was Akers's 63-yarder against the Packers. Seems like he's a completely different person now. Harbaugh even brought in another kicker to practice this week to compete with Akers.
So there's uncertainty. Surprise Surprise. I'm just glad there's reason to truly dislike the Packers again. Ever since Favre left, (and since the 49ers have been mostly bad), I haven't had a problem with them. Aaron Rogers has been so unbelievably good, it's hard to hate him aside from his stupid touchdown celebration. Well as soon as he throws his first on Saturday, it is, as they say, on.
Oh. Baby.
The 49er Dynasty of the 1980's is a massive source of pride, but I was born too late to really enjoy it. Their rivalry with the Cowboys in the 1990's was great, and left me with a healthy hatred of "America's Team" that still hangs on today. But it was the rivalry with the Packers of the late '90's that took hold of me in the most emotional way, and gave me my favorite football memory of all time. The media began its shameful love affair with Brett Favre during this time, taking away attention from the much-deserving Steve Young, who had turned in the greatest SuperBowl performance of all time in 1994. But in 3 straight seasons, the Pack ousted the 49ers from the playoffs. It was, as they say, on. So to get that monkey off their backs in 1999 with The Catch II ("OWENS! OWENS! OWENS!"), well that was just peachy.
The Packers got the 49ers again in 2002 to go up 4-1 in playoff meetings, so there is some work to do to turn the tables. They can start this Saturday, as a new chapter in this history book will be written. And the '9ers already showed they can beat their rivals when they handily upset the Packers in Week 1, in Green Bay. Packers fans no doubt have some excuse as to why that game went the way it did, and the 49ers are banged up, so it will be no easy task. They are at home this time, and they also have a different quarterback, which apparently is an important position.
By now I think we can agree that Kaepernick is a (probably minor) upgrade over Alex Smith, right? He lacks experience, which could turn out to be huge, but it will be tough to measure. What we can know is that he can throw the ball faster and farther, and he's more mobile (although people do seem to be forgetting that Smith could run the ball, too). Anyway, my point is, I think we know pretty much what we are getting from most of this 49er team. From my limited football knowledge, I'd say there are two 49ers on which the game will hinge: Justin Smith and David Akers.
It was never a secret that Aldon Smith relied heavily on Justin Smith while he was piling up the sacks this year. But since Justin went down with a torn tricep tendon, Aldon hasn't added to his sack total once. More frightening is that it's easy to tell the defense as a whole has suffered. Through the first 13.5 games this year, the '9ers gave up an average 3.3 points per quarter (that's counting the two overtimes against St. Louis and the first half of the Pats game). Since Halftime of that Pats game (roughly when Smith went out), the 49ers have allowed an average of 8.6 points per quarter. (That's not as good). It looks like Smith will play this weekend, but there's no way to tell how effective he will be. The 49ers will need to get consistent pressure on Aaron Rogers to stop that high-powered offense. I'm not sure they can do it with 50% of Justin Smith.
Meanwhile, David Akers has gone from one of the best in the game to one of the worst. Hopefully he'll continue doing his best Tim Lincecum impression and have a complete revival in the playoffs. The 49er formula of grinding out wins with stingy defense, conservative offense, and winning the field position battle doesn't really work without a lock-down field-goal kicker. That's yet another reason why Kaepernick may be the better choice. Still, probably my favorite moment of this regular season was Akers's 63-yarder against the Packers. Seems like he's a completely different person now. Harbaugh even brought in another kicker to practice this week to compete with Akers.
So there's uncertainty. Surprise Surprise. I'm just glad there's reason to truly dislike the Packers again. Ever since Favre left, (and since the 49ers have been mostly bad), I haven't had a problem with them. Aaron Rogers has been so unbelievably good, it's hard to hate him aside from his stupid touchdown celebration. Well as soon as he throws his first on Saturday, it is, as they say, on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)