Bears Overrated?!?!

OK, let me first begin this by saying that I am, as the one or two of you that will from time to time read this blog know, a Bears fan. Let me also state that this is not a post about how what everyone saw yesterday didn't mean anything, or that they are still better than the Chargers, or anything like that. This is an attempt to educate the people out there that think they know something about sports.

Secondly, let me add that I am not against people's opinions. I realize that I am more positive about the Bears than other folks. Of coarse I am, I'm a fan. That is what we do. However, as anyone that knows me can attest, I am a realistic fan. I am not going to try to tell you that you are wrong if you don't think they are as good as I do. I am not going to say you are an idiot for thinking they might not be the best team in the NFC. If that is what you think, fine. I disagree, and I will give you valid points as to why I disagree, but as Chris Berman says, "That's why they play the games"!

Now, the point of this rant is the thought of the Bears being overrated. As I was driving home from my friends house last night after the game, I was listening to sports radio. There was a caller, lets call him "Joe from Jersey" that went on for about 10 minutes about how the Bears are the most "overrated" team in football. He talked about their QB, their losses to New England and Indy last year, and of coarse their loss to the Chargers yesterday.

My response would be this: Joe, do you know what the term overrated means? If not, ask the University of Michigan. What, can't get the Maze and Blue on the phone? OK, let me give you a general definition. It means that a team, for our purposes, has been placed in an elevated status, and then not lived up to this placement. Now I would ask Joe, given this definition, how are the Bears overrated? Let me give some perspective, before Joe gets into a lather.

Last year, from the minute the Arizona game ended in week 6, the Bears were not mentioned among the elite of the NFL anymore, unless you count local Chicago radio and TV people. They were called one of the better teams in the NFC, but I can't think of many "experts" that said they were better than San Diego, Baltimore, New England, or Indy for that matter. This was due in large part to their quarterback, Rex Grossman, and it was deserved. You can not be an elite team when the most important player on your team has a 50-50 shot of being the most important player on the other team too. Now, lets look back at our definition. If no one is saying that they are great, when they aren't great, how are they overrated? What they were was the best team in the NFC. I know this because they went to the Super Bowl from the NFC, and that, stat geeks, is all that really matters. But we'll come back to that.

Lets look at the New England game. They were a 4 point underdog. Wait, let me repeat that, the were a 4 point UNDERDOG. Now, as an underdog, you are supposed to lose. So, when you do lose, how does this make you overrated? You lived up to what was expected. For the record, they were 4 point dogs, and they lost by 4.

OK, now lets return the NFC title and the NFC playoffs. I can honestly say that there were 0, zilch, nada of the experts at ESPN that thought the Bears would go to the Super Bowl. Many of them picked against them in the Seattle game, and all of them, from Mike Golic to Merrel Hodge to Ron Jaworski, picked them to lose to the Saints. Again, I ask, if everyone is saying that you will lose, how are you overrated? Never mind the fact that you actually WON THE F#&*ING GAMES! You were picked to lose. This seems like the exact opposite of our definition.

Now, they of coarse lost the Super Bowl, but again, they were supposed to lose. They were underdogs in Vegas as well as in the eyes of the vast majority of analysts. How do I know, because I am a glutton for punishment and I love to watch as much of this as possible. So again, as above with the Patriots game, when you are supposed to lose, and you do, how is this overrated?

Then finally there is the issue of yesterdays game. Yes they lost. Yes they had 4 turnovers. However, as with the Pats and the Colts, they were supposed to lose. I can think of very few places where I saw them being picked to win. Even Michael Wilbon, a writer for the Washington Post, host of PTI on ESPN, Chicago boy, and unapologetic Chicago sports fan, picked the Chargers to win. See what I am getting at? Again, if you are picked to lose, and you lose, then you did what was expected of you. This doesn't make it ok, but it does mean that you weren't overrated.

Now, if you want to say that the Bears suck, fine. You're wrong, but fine. They are what everyone who has a brain has said, a good team with some serious flaws. Are they in the category with New England, Indy, or San Diego? No. Are they as good as Baltimore? Not sure. Are they better than everyone else in the NFC? Maybe, maybe not. Are one of the best teams in their conference? Yes. Will they make the playoffs? Yes. Can they make the Super Bowl again? Unless the entire defense gets hurt, then yes. They are one of the many teams that are in that second level. They are in their with Dallas, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Carolina, Seattle, etc. They are a team that is capable of beating any team in the league, while they are also capable of losing to some bad teams. So say that they aren't as good as the best teams, fine. Say they won't go to the Super Bowl, OK. These are statements that I can not definitively say are incorrect. However, you can not, at least correctly, say that they are overrated.

Will this stop Joe from Jersey and those like him? No. These types will continue to spew out all the "knowledge" they have. Most of which will be false, and that is fine. I'll just have to either turn it off, or listen, get pissed, and write a blog to vent and cool off. Ultimately, anger me though it does, this is is one of the things that make sports so great. There are few things that bring out as much passion and opinions as sports. I just hope that people will start using the correct terms and not calling any team that loses overrated.

Football Preview - note: not soccer

Well, John-O decided to give a little nod to the upcoming football season, and sense I have some free time, I will as well. While not as desperate as some people are, seeing as how the Cub are about to make things interesting (Yes, I am serious), football is still king, so lets dance, shall we?

First some general comments, thoughts, and such. Let's first tackle the "surprise" category. I have a few. Two of them are last years Super Bowl teams. Now, I am not too worried about the Bears. They are still stout defensively, and should be at least as good on offense. However, as many people have stated, we need to see what Rexy does before we get too excited. Another thing working in their favor is the weakest division in major league sports.

Then there are the Colts. I am a bit concerned with them. In fact, I think it is going to be quite the struggle to win the division. First off, I think the division as a whole will be better. I think both Jacksonville and Tennessee are legit threats and I think Houston will be improved, if not good. Then there is the defense. This was THE problem for the Colts last year. Now yes, they turned it around in the playoffs, but which D is for real? The one that was there for 4 weeks or the one that was there for 16? Also, they not only added next to nothing, but they lost no less than 4 starters, including 3 of their 4 opening day starters in the secondary. I just am concerned when you lose key players to your biggest question area. We'll see though.

I am also not totally sold on the Chargers. I need to see this again for me to really believe it. I am not doubting that they are a talented team, but they had a dream season from "the other LT" last year, and it always seems that there is a playoff team from the previous season that struggles the next one. They have a new coaching staff, and they are in a very good division. I am not saying they will miss the playoffs, or even not win their division, I am just saying I am not sold.

Lastly, in the negative, are the Cowboys. I just don't get it. Yes they are in a weak division, and yes they made the playoffs last year, but why are people so in love with this team? They have the single biggest distraction in sports, a quarterback that had a terrible end to a surprisingly successful season, they have an iffy defense, and a new coach who has never been successful as the head guy. So why all the love? I just don't get it.

As for surprisingly successful teams, it seems everyone is going with the 49ers, so I will stay away from them and go with Arizona, for what is possibly the third of forth season in a row. Their is a ton of talent and they are no longer being held back by the ineptitude of their head coach. Their offense should be as good as anyone, and their D has too many Pro Bowlers to not be decent.

Now, for predicitions:
AFC East: Patriots - can't see how you can make a case for anyone else. Buffalo is improved and the Jets are solid, but still.
AFC North: Steelers - I think they turn things around this year. They had some injuries last year, and that hurt. Plus, I think Baltimore is too old.
AFC South: Colts - I'll take them, but I think it is a dog fight, especially with them visiting all 3 opponents early on.
AFC West: Chargers - Again, I'll take them, but it is not an easy choice.
Wild Cards: Broncos and Bengals - Cincy is so talented and, theoretically, should have fewer off field issues. I think Jay Cutler will be a star, NOW!

NFC East: Redskins - I know what you're thinking, and yes, this is a bit of a stretch, but they played very well at the end of the season last year, Jason Campbell will start from day 1, and Clinton Portis should be healthy. Plus, i think Dallas, the Giants, and the Eagles are all junk.
NFC North: Bears - this is the biggest lock in football. Terrible division and the best D in the conference.
NFC South: Panthers - Most talented team in the conference. They could easily be the best. If healthy, Steve Smith is the best player in the NFC.
NFC West: Seahawks - This is their last year in the catbird seat. '9ers and Cardinals are coming.
Wild Cards: Saints and 49ers - Saints could easily win their division and the '9ers are the best of whats left.

AFC Playoffs:
Round 1 - Colts over Bengals, and Steelers over Broncos
Round 2 - Chargers over Colts, and Pats over Steelers
Championship - Pats over Chargers

NFC Playoffs:
Round 1 - Saints over Seahawks, and 49ers over Redskins
Round 2 - Bears over 49ers, and Panthers over Saints
Championship - Panthers over Bears

Super Bowl - Panthers over Patriots. That's right, I said it. Partially wishful thinking but also partially due to the fact that the odds on favorite never seems to win.

MVP - Tom Brady
Coach of the Year - Mike Nolan (49ers)
Offensive ROY - Adrian Peterson (Vikings)
Defensive ROY - Laron Landry (Skins)

A New Arena for a New Era

Tonight, I received some interesting, at least to me, information. Apparently, over the past few days, the board of trustees at Indiana University were meeting, in relative secrecy at IPFW, one of their satellite campuses in Gary, Indiana. The meeting was held here, most likely, as to not sound any alarms or draw any attention to the meeting. So what was discussed at this "secret meeting"? The decision to build a new basketball arena at Indiana University, to replace Assembly Hall.

Upon first hearing about this, I was a little surprised, a little disappointed, and a little angry. Assembly Hall is a place that means a lot to me. It is where I saw my first live sporting event. It is the home of my favorite sports team, and where I saw so many games as a student on campus. It had become synonymous with Indiana hoops. In the '70's, '80's, and '90's is was considered one of the loudest, and most difficult places to play in the country. It just seemed wrong, and a little unnecessary to knock it down.

However, upon further thought, I realized that this was not only ok, it was actually a good (not to mention inevitable) turn of events. Assembly Hall, once a jewel of the Big 10, has become one of it's older and smaller venues. It only holds 17 thousand people (compared to the 26 and 24 thousand held by the Kohl Center in Madison, Wisconsin and the Value City Arena in Columbus, Ohio respectively). It is slowly beginning to show its age, and it can no longer hide the fact that of those 17 thousand seats, about 4 thousand of them are terrible places to watch a game.

The arena is, for all intents and purposes, a square and there are about 60 seats in each "corner" where you are literally up against the upper level. The angle of the seats coupled with the closeness to the bottom of the upper level make it nearly impossible to see the entire court. I vividly remember watching a game against Michigan State my last year in which my roommate and I had to move to the tunnel to see because we were almost completely unable to see the game at our end of the floor.

Then there are the seats at the top of the upper level. Rarely, unless it is Purdue, Michigan State, or a team that is contending for the conference title, are many of these seats filled. They are always sold, which allows IU to call the game a "sell out", but you can almost always have your pick of seats up there. The reason? A. the angle is so steep that you often feel like you might fall forward onto the floor. And B. you feel like you are miles away. In this day and age of arenas with "not a bad seat in the house", this is unacceptable. Especially if you want to view yourself as one of the 3 or 4 top programs in college hoops.

Now, weren't all these issues there back in the '80's? Yes, they were. So why not the outcry then? Two words: Bob Knight. Not only would he not allow any changes to the arena, but there was no need. All those seats were filled just by him. For one reason, the product was great. Also, there was always the chance you might see him throw a chair, or break a phone, or something like that. Knight was such a draw that it didn't matter where you played your games. He would've sold out a barn with holes in the roof during a rain storm. However, add together the fact that Coach Knight is gone to the recent struggles the Hoosiers have had, and it is not surprising that attendance has dropped each year since Coach left.

Now, with a new coach and a new athletic director, the Hoosiers are re-building the program. In fact, they are re-building the entire sports program. They are building new baseball and softball fields. They are closing in one end of Memorial Stadium, creating a smaller version of the horseshoe in Ohio State. They are building a brand new basketball practice facility as well as installing new weight equipment throughout the campus. With all these changes, it seems only right that the new Hoosiers hoops team has a new place to play.

The arena will not be finished until at the earliest 2009, and most likely well after that. It should have 20+ thousand seats, and should have far fewer bad tickets. I have little doubt that they will be able to carry over the "old time gym" feel that helps make Assembly Hall so special. After all, one of the single best indoor sports facilities in the country is just up the road in Indianapolis at Conseco Fieldhouse.

I know there will be some closed minded people that will think that this is a travesty, and just helps show everything that is wrong with the world, and all that. To that I say simply this: I would wager that you are the same people that are bitching about how bad the seats are when you are banished to the upper level, or are unfortunate enough to get one of the corner seats. Look, buildings get old. What was good 30 years ago, is not necessarily good today. Look at what is happening in baseball. They recently built a new Busch Stadium in St. Louis, will soon be building a new Fenway Park and a new Yankee Stadium, and I promise (sorry my fellow Cub fans) a new Wrigley Field is on the way. Teams/schools are losing too much money by not having the capacities they should, and many of these older stadiums and parks are just plain un-safe.

Ultimately, I would say this to anyone who wants to complain about this. Get over yourself. If they can build a new Yankee Stadium and a new Fenway Park, then they can build a new Assembly Hall, because comparatively speaking, we aren't even a blip on their radars. But of coarse, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

A Kingdom of Conscience

I want to take a moment and talk about something other than sports. My buddy John-O has done some very good film critiques and reviews on here, and I wanted to do something along that line. However, I will not be talking about a new movie, but one that has been out for a couple years now. That movie is Kingdom of Heaven. More precisely, the Director's Cut of Kingdom which you can buy at your local DVD store, and is a completely different movie than what was seen in theatres.

As the 4 of you that may have looked at my blog might have noticed, I have a quote from the film as my little intro line. You may have wondered why I chose this movie. After all, it was widely considered a flop. The most press it received was the scathing attacks on its "political" views and such. To be totally honest with you, I was somewhat disappointed with the theatrical release as well. I am a huge fan of Ridley Scott, and was quite excited to see his next, great, epic action film (after Gladiator of coarse). However, I think this was one reason for my disappointment. I went into this with the wrong hopes, and this was due in large part to the studios marketing of the film.

The studio did not at all like Ridley's original cut of the film. They felt it was too long, too slow, too boring. They wanted another Gladiator. They made Ridley cut over an hour out of the film and marketed it as the summers first big action blockbuster. The problem is, this is not what it is, nor what it was ever meant to be. What the film was supposed to be was a great story about some very interesting characters during a period of the crusades. It was never meant to create the action/adventure buzz that Gladiator did. It was never meant to say who was good and who was evil, or right and wrong during this long, huge battle for Jerusalem. It was meant to be a historical story, with one man's point of view, and a dramatized tale, involving real historical characters, to give people some information about a time period that most know very little about.

I have recently become a huge fan of the History Chanel and was lucky enough to watch several documentaries about the Templar Knights and others from this time period. Having seen these shows and learned the truth, as far as scholars know it, about these men and this time period, I felt that much more prepared to watch and understand Kingdom then when I saw it in the theatres back in 2005.

The directors cut starts out with Ridley explaining the differences between this cut and the theatrical version and why they are so different. He, to the extent he can without being black-balled, rips 20th Century Fox for forcing him to release a movie that was not at all what he set out to make. (On the special features discs there is a feature length documentary about the making of Kingdom from start to finish in which he explains that he thought he had proved his abilities enough to have them trust him, which is why he holds a certain bitterness towards Fox even to this day).

I do not want to give a blow by blow account of the film, so I will more focus on the major differences between the directors cut and the theatrical cut. While the basic arch of Balian, (Orlando Bloom - the lead character) and the other main characters is the same, there are a great deal more details, explanations, and layers given to them and their stories. You learn a great deal more about Balian's past. You learn more about the King's sister, Sibilla (Eva Green) as well as many other main characters.

I don't think I can stress enough how much more information you get in the Director's Cut. One of the things that the theatrical was criticized for was the lack of story flow. It seemed to jump around a lot. There was never a nice flow to it. It always seemed that there were things missing from the story, or from a certain scene. This second version is how it was originally meant to be. The story actually makes sense. You understand why certain characters act certain ways. You understand why a certain moment is important. You understand all that has taken place leading up to the only sure villain, and Sibilla's husband Guy de Lusignan, taking the thrown after the king's death. In fact, this is part of the main sub-story that was removed.

That sub-story is that Sibilla has a son, and by the rightful succession of things in those times, he would take the thrown after the king, King Baldwin who by the way was a leper, passed on. However, he does not for a reason I will let you discover when you watch the Director's Cut. In the theatrical version, Guy is simply given the thrown. You are left wondering why, or even how this happens.

Another main story segment that is left out, or not explained is what really happens to our main characters after all this. In the theatrical version there is simply an end, with what seems like no real rhyme or reason. However, in the Director's Cut, you get much more detail into how things really finished for Balian, Sibilla, Guy and others.

There are also longer battle scenes, although they do not add any new ultra exciting sequences or anything. You see more of the build up to the battles as well as the strategies of the Muslims and the Christians once the battle begins.

You spend more time getting to know King Baldwin and the Muslim leader, Saladin. You begin to understand why they have so much respect for each other as adversary's and leaders. You see their compassion as well as their devotion to their beliefs.

I hope that those of you that saw the original version and didn't like it will be be willing to give it another chance. For those of you that have not seen it at all, I would recommend watching the Director's Cut first, then, if you choose, watching the theatrical to see what I am talking about. I promise you, you will not have the same disappointment that most had when walking out of the theatre. You may even sit back and realize that this was a wonderful movie that did not get it's fair shake because of the short sightedness of some people in suits with very little film knowledge.

Let The Madness Begin!

Ah yes. It's here. The single greatest even in all of sports. For many of us, this coming Thursday and Friday rival Christmas and Thanksgiving as the top two holidays of the year. I for one have not worked or gone to school on the opening Thursday and Friday of the tournament since I was old enough to know what was happening. That, sadly, will change this year, but oh well.

So, yesterday we finally got the brackets and all the guessing as to who was in and who was not is finally over. I will get into what I thought were some terrible errors and omissions by the committee, including what I think is the single worst of all time, later. For now, lets look at who did get in, make a few comments and see how I think things will shake down.

First off let me say that I have not won a pool since I was about 8. I have been very close. One year I didn't miss my second game until the second weekend (and then the wheels just totally fell off). Another year I got everything but one right from the Elite 8 on. That being said, I have been the bridesmaid many times of late, and have resigned myself to doing it again. But, this is one of the most fun things I do all year, so here we go.

Lets first look at some of the more interesting seeding. I was not at all surprised with the four #1's. I know some people still had UCLA as a one, and I think had Kansas or Ohio State lost, they would've been. Some of the more interesting things I saw involved many "power conference" teams getting higher seeds than I thought they deserved.

Maryland as a four seems way high to me. I know they were very hot at the end of the year, but then they lost to Miami in their conference tourney. Also, with the exception of the final week of the regular ACC season, they had been little more than a bubble team. Now they are a 4?

Sticking in the ACC, I thought both Duke and Virginia Tech were higher then they should be. I, for one, thought the ACC was largely average this year and may not have deserved 6 teams. I really think Duke is being seeded on their name more than what they did this year. They lost most of the big games they played including getting rolled in their first round ACC tournament game. I think a 7 or an 8 would've been more correct. Virginia Tech seemed to really tail off at the end of the year. they have some good wins (UNC, @ Duke, @ BC) but couldn't beat an injured NC State team in the ACC tournament.

Another conference I thought got more than they deserved was the Big 10. This hurts, being an IU fan, but I am stunned that both Illinois and Purdue got in. I thought one might, but both was a surprise. No one in the conference won on the road, with the exception of Ohio State, and I just think there were some teams from other conferences that deserved a ticket more than these two.

Now, for how I see things shaking down. I see a lot of upsets. This year, more than most, the top seeds are very flawed. I think there are quite a few higher seeds that are ripe for an upset. Wisconsin at a 2 is a possible quick out. Yes they have Alando Tucker but they struggle to score and are missing one of their best players in Brian Butch. I think both Duke and V Tech are ripe for upsets as well as almost everyone from the Midwest region. I have #4 Maryland, #5 Butler, and #6 Notre Dame all losing in the first round and I have Wisconsin losing in the second round.

As for the power teams I think that Florida and Kansas will be the only #1's to make it to Atlanta. I have Texas beating North Carolina (before losing to Georgetown), Ohio State losing to Tennessee (who only lost to the Buckeyes on a last second 3 from Ron Lewis in Columbus earlier in the year) before Tennessee falls to Texas A&M. Once we get to Atlanta I think the best game will be the rematch between Kansas and Florida (Kansas won early in the year). I see Florida winning this one while Gerogetown has little trouble with Acie Law IV and the Aggies. Florida will then battle Georgetown in what promises to be one of the better title games in recent years.

There you go. I have Florida cutting down the nets again. I know it is near impossible to repeat these days (only Duke has done it since the great UCLA teams) but this team is just too good. That being said, I am no longer shocked by anything that happens in this tournament, and that is what makes it great. George Mason anyone?

Now that we have looked at the good, I want to voice my frustration with the selectioncommittee. Let me first say that I know they have a terribly difficult job. I think there are always teams that should be in or out in each tournament, but for the most part I think they do a good job. Well, this year I think they really messed up.

First off, they seemed to further the stigma that the "BCS" conferences are the most important. This year there were only 6 mid-major, at-large teams invited, down from 8 last year and 12 the year before. Left out were worthy teams such as Drexel, Appalachin State, and Missouri State. This seems especially strange given the amazing story that was George Mason the year before. You would think that the committee would want to capitalize on this and maybe give the benefit of the doubt to a few more of the smaller schools, but I guess not. They even have two mid-majors who people were talking about as "bracket busters" playing each other in the first round (Butler vs. ODU). Are they trying to ensure that the Elite 8, Final 4 and title game are full of power conference teams?

Then there is the amazingly puzzling absence of Syracuse. Now, let me admit from the jump here that I am very biased. After Indiana, Syracuse is one of the few teams that I really follow. I think Jim Boeheim is one of the more under-rated coaches in America which is sad considering his record. Anyways, this team went 10-6 in the Big East which was, statistically, stronger this year than last. Last year they were the 3rd ranked conference according to the RPI and got 8 teams in. This year, they were second and only got 6. They had more teams ranked at the end of the year this year too, but this does not just boil down to the strength of the Big East.

Syracuse has been knocked for not leaving the state of New York until the Big East started. However, they had a stronger pre-season schedule than Stanford, Indiana (I was shocked at this), Maryland, Illinois, Purdue, and Texas Tech, to name a few. All of these teams got in.

Illinois and Purdue finished with 9-7 records in their conferences, neither beating either of the top two teams, Ohio State and Wisconsin. As stated above, Syracuse was 10-6 and had wins over Georgetown (1) and Pittsburgh(1), the top two teams of the Big East. The Orange won a game in their conference tourney, unlike Stanford, Texas Tech and Maryland. They had 4 wins against teams that were ranked at the end of the year which is more than Illinois (1), Purdue(1), Indiana (3), Texas Tech(3), and Stanford(3). To me, if Indiana is a 7 seed, which I think they deserved, and those other 4 teams got into the tournament, then Syracuse is not worse than a 9.

Factor in that they finished the season 8-2 going into their conference tournament, including Georgetown's only loss in its last 16 games and I think you have to agree this was a slight. To me, this is the biggest error of omission in tournament history. But that is just my opinion, I could be wrong (Thank Dennis).

Now that i have griped a bit, let me again say how excited I am for this tournament. I don't know if there will be a George Mason this year, but there should be some absolutely amazing games. It should be lights out fun for the whole family. BTW, for those of you wondering what I see happening for my beloved Hoosiers, I see them beating Gonzaga and then getting crushed by UCLA. However, the last time I foresaw this big of a beating for them, they beat Duke and started their magical run to the final 4. Oh yeah, it was in Atlanta that year too.

Tyring To Set A New Pace(rs)

My buddy John-O and one of his blogging pals, Shane, have both posted excellent thoughts on the current state of Indiana's other pro sports team, the Pacers. You can read those here and here. These excellent posts inspired me to write my own. Having lived in Indy most of my life, and followed the Pacers the rest of it, I feel that it is time for me to also voice my opinion. Plus, I haven't been able to come up with much to write on lately with the NFL being over and all.

What got all this rolling was an article in which Jermaine O'Neal, a former NBA All-Star and the current face of the Pacers, stated that, essentially, either the Pacers contend immediately or he's out. The two posts touch on the leadership ability, or lack-there-of, of O'Neal, his on court talent, and what the Pacers should do going forward. I have a slightly different take.

I, to be honest, am not much of a fan of Jermain O'Neal anymore. When the Pacers first acquired him, I thought it was one of the more inspired acquisitions in the recent history of the team. Here was a kid that, though extremely raw at the time, had an unlimited ceiling. He could score, defend, block shots, he was a great athlete, enjoyed playing in the post, and was a good kid that just wanted the chance he wasn't getting in Portland. Well, he got his shot here, and made the most of it. He quickly emerged as a force in the Eastern conference. He started averaging near 20 points and 10 rebounds every season, and was a fixture on All-Star and All-NBA teams everywhere. Then something happened, and that all changed, as least on the surface. Reggie Miller retired.

As both John-O and Shane point out, Reggie was the unquestioned leader of the Pacers, even when he was not much more than a role player. Well, once he retired, that mantle fell to O'Neal, and while most #2's take this chance and run with it, J.O. did the opposite. He seemed to lose a lot of the desire, heart, and ultimately "game" that had made him a superstar. He began to struggle against lesser players. Seemed to shy away from the big shot. Even seemed to attempt to return to his role as option two giving the reigns to Ron Artest and later Stephen Jackson. In one short year, O'Neal had gone from one of the better power forwards in the league to maybe not the best player on his team.

I, honestly, was not all that surprised by this. I have not been a big O'Neal fan since the 2004 season. In '04 O'Neal had one of his better years statistically. He averaged 20 and 10, along with 3 blocks while shooting near 50% from the floor and near 75% from the foul line en route to finishing third in the MVP voting. The Pacers had the best record in the NBA at 61-21 and seemed poised to make another run to the NBA finals. Well, O'Neal came down with one nagging injury after another throughout the playoffs and was essentially not there in the Eastern Conference finals against Detroit, which the Pacers ultimately lost.

Now, I am not saying he wasn't hurt. I am sure he was. Playing in the post is a tough job. My point is this: great players play hurt when the season is on the line. The two guys that finished ahead of him in the MVP voting, Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan also a post players, and they seemed to stay healthy enough to play. Garnett was even able to get his team to the Western Conference finals by his sheer will with one of the greatest single game 7's ever (36 pts, 21 rebs, 8 asts, and a game winning 3 at the buzzer).

J.O. however seemed to shy away from the pressure. He seemed to be almost looking for a reason to not have to put the team on his back. That Pacers team was far better than the Pistons, even with Rasheed Wallace. It just seemed that when a big play needed to be made, the Pacers' leader either couldn't, wouldn't, or didn't make it.

That was the last time the Pacers were a relevant team in terms of winning in the NBA. They have, unfortunately, been relevant for other reasons, and I think J.O. is involved here as well. The Pacers have, in the past 3 years been involved in numerous on and off the court scandals including the worst brawl in league history and multiple bar fights. To me, this speaks to the make up of the team.

Now, this is not a soap box for me or anything like that, but in the past, when guys like Reggie, Mark Jackson, Dale Davis, etc. were around, these things wouldn't have happened. So where is J.O. in all of this? First he is saying that if the Pacers trade Artest then maybe they should trade him too. Then he is backing Stephen Jackson and Jamaal Tinsley as good people, great teammates, and close friends.

The Pacers in the last few years have been a reincarnation of the Pat Riley Knicks, and this falls on the coaches and management too. Marginal on court performance, but plenty of off court stuff to write about. To me, this speaks to leadership, as John and Shane have said. O'Neal should've been out if front of all of this stating that this is not how professionals should act, and not giving excuses for his teammates. There should've been closed door meetings where J.O. was letting the rest of the team know that these kinds of things were unacceptable of a team that considers themselves contenders.

Did he do any of this? No. In fact, more times than not, it was other players who were saying anything at all. J.O. was relatively mute on the whole thing. Do you think for a second that Jordan, Bird, Magic, Worthy, etc. would've stayed quite about these incidents, even if the accused players were their friends? Absolutely not.

Now, John-O and Shane both refer to J.O. as a great player, but a bad leader. I think most, smart people would agree with them. I, however, disagree. I think he is a good/very good player and a bad leader. I think he was, at one time, a great player, but that died in 2004. Now, he is not much more, in my opinion, than a weighty salary keeping this team just good enough to lose in the first round of the playoffs every year. Is this good enough Indy? Are you content with getting to, and then losing in, the playoffs every year? I would hope not. If you are then you all should've eased up on Peyton a few years ago.

I completely agree with John-O and Shane's assertions that it might be time for a change. I would've also liked to have seen it earlier in the year. As John-O states, why not put your name in the Greg Oden hat and see what happens. As they both mention, the Pacers currently have a great piece to build around in Danny Granger, who is one of the more unknown yet talented guys in the league (just think Josh Howard but as a better athlete). Even if they didn't get Oden, to me, there is a greater upside in starting the re-building now, and trading O'Neal now to get something for him.

There are 8-10 teams that are much closer to winning a title than the Pacers that would love a solid big man who can score and defend. Look at Chris Webber to the Pistons. He was a guy that was past his best years, but still a very good player and he has turned them into a real force in the East. This is exactly what O'Neal could do. Go somewhere an be option 2,3, or even 4 and make a good team very good or even great.

This, in all of our opinions I think, is the best move for all involved. The trade deadline is right around the corner and the Pacers are currently toiling around in the East's 5th playoff spot. Will Donnie and the boys throw away another first round exit to start the re-building? I doubt it, unfortunately. But, as a guy who would love to see both of his home town teams be great again, I would love to see it.

Jeff Garcia?!?!? Really?!?!?!

OK, I touched on it a few posts ago, but now it appears that the possibility of Jeff Garcia to the Bears is, at worst, a 50-50 shot. At first I was mortified by this. My first thought was that it would be the crazy, over-the-top people that only listen to the guys on Around the Horn that thought this was a smart move. However, after I let the thought sink in a bit, and after a chat with a good friend of mine, I may be willing to change my stance on this. At least I am not quite as opposed to it as I was yesterday.

The easiest way to discuss this is essentially by starting with the statements my friend made. I will then state my response, with some more verbiage added of coarse. This may seem rambled, but it will ultimately make sense.

The first issue dealt with the age. Obviously Rex is a lot younger than Jeff Garcia. My buddy stated that he would rather go with the young guy than the old guy, all things being equal. Now, for 25 of the 32 teams in the league, I would totally agree. I always hate it when I see the Minnesota Vikings, the Washington Redskins, etc. go with the Brad Johnsons or Mark Brunnells of the world.

My view of this changes if you are one of the 6 or 7 teams that can conceivably contend for a title. If that is the case, I think that you have to have a different frame of mind. I don't think you can necessarily wait around for a young guy to "get it" because the window of time that you can win a Super Bowl is so small. Do you miss out on your shot at a title, or do you go out and get the veteran for a shot to win now. My contention was that I don't want to waste this team by waiting for Rex to flip the switch. He really did not get any better, decision wise, through out the season. He is so physically talented that he is going to make plays, but, even in the playoff games, he continually made mistake after mistake.

You look at the divisional game against Seattle. Rex's first pass was a deep post route to Rasheed Davis. This ball should've been intercepted. The ball went directly through Jordan Babinoux's hands, hitting both of them on the way. I think the Bears saw this and instantly started to tighten the reigns on Rex. He was allowed to make very few plays the rest of the game.

In the NFC title game, against New Orleans, Rex was again not allowed to go down the field very much, especially early. Now, obviously the weather had a little to do with this, but I think this was by design. On the one drive that Rex supporters will bring up, the touchdown was a bit mis-leading. This ball was just hing up in the air, for anyone to get. It just so happened that the defensive back, Fred Thomas, was one of the worst corners in the league this year. He turned one way, then back the other and still had a shot for an easy pick, that he of coarse missed. The ball then fell into Bernard Berrian's hands for the score.

Finally, in the Super Bowl, the two INT's Rex threw late in the game were just inexcusable. The first was just thrown up, without looking to see where his receiver was. The second came out of his hand wrong, due to the weather. The problem with this excuse was that the weather did not hinder Peyton Manning at all.

Now, do young quarterbacks make mistakes? Of coarse. However, most of them would have showed some signs of improvement. Maybe they play a little shaky early, but by the end of the year, they have at least cut down on the mistakes. Rex seemed to have learned nothing. He was doing the same things in January that he was in November.

Jeff Gracia is a veteran guy, who for the large part of his career, has made few mistakes, and headed some very productive offenses. Did he have his problems in Cleveland and Detroit? Yes, but I would ask how much of that was due to the lack of talent around him. Has anyone, in the recent past, won in either of those cities? The answer is, or coarse, no. Now, was Jeff great on these teams? Not at all. However, with talent around him, this guy has been successful.

What Jeff Garcia is is a savvy, veteran quarterback who completely turned the season around for the Eagles last year. He makes very few mistakes. He is, even at this age, dramatically more mobile than Grossman. He has larger hands than Rex, which should help on the super tricky center-QB exchange thing. He has a strong enough arm to make an offense work. He can read defenses. Is he a long term fix? Absolutely not. He may only work for a year or two. However, isn't it worth the "rental" of a veteran if it works?

Now, another thing we discussed was what if he makes the same mistakes Rex does? Well, I would contend then that you are no worse off. The rest of this team was good enough to win their division and make the Super Bowl, with minimal, NEEDED, contribution from Rex. He had some great games early, but they were in 20 point blow outs. In close game, did he make any of the key plays? I would contend no.

I would contend that you owe it to yourselves, to your players, and to your fans to try to fix issues with your team. Is Rex an issue with this team? Most definitely. Can he fix it? Maybe. My thing is that he showed little to no improvement. He's the same guy today that he was at Florida. He is exceptionally talented. He makes throws that only 3 or 4 other guys could. The problem is that he makes mistakes that some college kids wouldn't be making.

Now, yes, I know Rex won 15 games this season. But I would ask all you Bears fans: does that matter at all right now? He was one of the main reasons for the loss in Super Bowl XLI. Had he improved late in the year, the play calling might not have been so conservative. If he could've made another play or two, maybe the defense is more rested and would've played better. Maybe not. All I am saying is that he was more of a hindrance than a help in that game.

Ultimately, am I saying we should move on this and try to get Garcia? Not necessarily. What I am saying is that I am not totally against this anymore. Rex has given me no reason to think that next year will be any better, and I do not want to see this team get broken up a few years down the road with nothing more than a Super Bowl loss and a few division titles to show for it. I want a title and if Jeff Garcia gives the Bears a better shot at it, then I am all for it.