Seesaw Sports has permanently moved to BuzzChomp.com
Find all the sports debate HERE.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Friday, February 28, 2014
"Impressive and Unnecessary" - What ha... happened?
Real photos. Real results. But what in the heck happened?
Read the full post on BuzzChomp HERE.
Monday, February 24, 2014
"Do you like turtles?" - What ha... happened?
This week we ask "What ha... happened?" The internet was scoured for a crazy sports photo or GIF and someone must try to explain it. Seesaw Sports asks what ha... happened? Monday: Opening statement. Friday: Rebuttal.
Real photos. Real results. But what in the heck happened?
Read the full post on BuzzChomp HERE.
Friday, February 21, 2014
All-Star Shakeup in the NBA
NBA All-Star weekend is fun, but w/ so many great ideas for improvement,
where to begin? New Dunks, new events; we rank all the crazy options in
our #NBA #Sports #Debate #TGIF
Read the full post on Buzzchomp HERE
Monday, February 17, 2014
NBA All-Star weekend Unraveled
NBA All-Star weekend saw changes to the dunk contest and other events. It wasn't enough! We need the high-dunk, 2on2, and more. Sports debate.
Read the full post on Buzzchomp HERE.
Friday, February 14, 2014
The Sochi Olympics get Red Hot
The Sochi Olympics get Red Hot
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (2-14-14)
Seesaw Sports is now on Buzzchomp. Find the post HERE. Go subscribe to keep up in future weeks as we transition away from blogger. Thanks.
[Part one - Sochi Olympics Fever 2014]
TODD:
What excites me most about the Olympics? I already do moguls well, so scratch that one off the list.
I think I could ski the 2 mile downhill course, although my time might be around 15 minutes rather than 2 minutes. I would want to try ski jumping though. Just the thought of soaring through the air for such a great distance seems majestic and awesome. It's also better than the halfpipe or slopestyle courses too because I wouldn't have to worry about spinning and flipping for a score; just float to victory.
And land. Landing is important.
I've watched a bit of the speed skating and figure skating. It seems like it would be cool to be able to skate so well, but I would have no interest in putting that skill to those ends.
When it comes down to it, isn't watching the Olympics (either winter or summer) more fun when you just get a taste of something? No one likes to sit down and watch an entire event, qualifying rounds through the finals. Even snowboarding and skiing which, as you pointed out, are the best to watch, are not fun all the way through, especially women's.
Poor scheduling job by NBC this year. There's no way they should ever air a men's slopestyle event before a women's event. The men go down, pulling off triple corks and 1440's. Then we see the women do a shaky 540 and swing their arms all the way to the landing and she qualifies for the finals immediately.
For events still to come, really the only thing on my agenda is to catch some of the hockey but, again, I don't plan on watching an entire game at any point, let alone the entire tournament. That's just the nature of the beast with Olympic sports. If the sport itself was good enough, it would be popular outside of the 4-year environment. It also isn't helping that all of the results are shared online throughout the day, before the event in question is even shown on television. No wonder The Walking Dead crushed the Olympics in TV ratings the other night.
DAN:
The Walking Dead crushed the Olympics because it is amazing. That had nothing to do with the Olympic TV product, nor NBC's manner in airing the festivities and events.
I can't take credit for my view point, as I heard Colin Cowherd wax poetic on the subject earlier this week, but I wholeheartedly agree that there is nothing wrong with the tape delay. You just said yourself that its not fun to sit and watch an entire Olympic event unfold. Its best served in bits and pieces, multiple servings from a sports buffet. Well NBC is attempting to provide just this to its viewing audience, editing down the long events, the boring parts, into a watchable show that could in fact be tolerated for the entire time. What you want is the Red Zone Channel equivalent of the Olympics. This would be the perfect thing to air on the NBC Sports network, boosting its ratings in the process, but NBC knows you will watch no matter how they air it or when.
Am I in the minority in wanting something different from the Olympics? I know they add new events every time and the whole thing is very serious for the athletes, but as you pointed out, none of these events are interesting outside of the Olympic games. Taking that as more or less a fact, the Olympics should really take a page from the X-games book and hype up the coolness factor by one hundred. One of the coolest X-game events is the snowmobile jumps. Why is that not an Olympic event? And they have the shooting event on cross country skiis, but why not let the snowboarders shoot things while going off jumps?
Its time to think outside the box and create some events that show new, unique skill sets. Its hard enough for all the countries around the equator to compete in the winter games, having no snow and all, so why not branch out and really make things interesting. Tubing? Snow ball fights? Tug of war? All of these things are fair game. A skill is a skill and I want to add a splash of color to the current black and white version of the games.
TODD:
Of course the edited version is preferable, but the Red Zone comparison is only apt if, on the actual Red Zone station, they showed you all the touchdowns that you had already seen written about that morning.
I'm not sure about many things in life, but I can be sure that Finland would crush it in Olympic snowball fighting.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Sochi Olympics Fever 2014
Sochi Olympics Fever 2014
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (2-10-14)
Seesaw Sports is now on Buzzchomp. Find the post HERE. Go subscribe to keep up in future weeks as we transition away from blogger. Thanks.
TODD:
The 2014 Winter Olympic games began last week in Sochi, Russia.
The opening ceremony was an elaborate, extravagant and over-the-top spectacle of...something. It was expensive and unnecessary, but really the entire Olympic games is that as well.
Every two years, the winter and summer Olympics are supposed to build the feeling of patriotism and joy for amateur athletics. It is a reason to watch athletes and sports you would never ordinarily care about or pay attention to. It does all of those things very well. There are very few things more exciting than watching a young athlete competing at the highest level for their country.
However, it seems to me that the Olympics does something more than build patriotism. It also destroys race relations. It encourages, nah Demands that you root against someone strictly based on their nationality. How is this a good thing?
How soon until the build-up of xenophobic feelings overwhelm us all and Jerry Rice and Deion Sanders are team captains, picking sides for the bipartisan Olympics?
DAN:
Wow, you just took the Olympics to a very dark and despondent place. I'd like to first acknowledge that yes, the Olympics are an awesome thing for the world. It brings sports to the masses, universalizes people and is a great show of hard work, dedication, and competition. I love the snowboarding and skiing events personally.
As for your ridiculous accusation that the Olympics is ruining race relations, you are obviously confusing race with nationality. This is the root of the very problem you brought up, that people use race so arbitrarily that it has become a catch all for prejudice in general. There are lots of different types of people in the world and the Olympics strive to do just the opposite of what you said. Sure, we are rooting for America. But we root for America no matter the race of the athlete wearing our flag. And all athletes from all the countries involved are placed on an even playing field, to compete as equals for the world to watch. The entire world unites and you want to spin it as encouraging hate? Who are you? Haha.
I understand the point you're making; we are growing as a society towards universal acceptance. Its unlikely we will ever get 100% there, but each step we make is important. And the Olympics only bolsters this. Every two years we are exposed to the greatness of other countries and their people. We may root against them, but its only a select few fans who wish harm upon the opponent. And those fans are not huge Olympics fans anyhow.
I'd also like to put to bed the idea of former star athletes drafting teams. This is great bar stool chatter, but the actual draft falls way short of expectation. Let's get Shaun White and Bode Miller to draft Olympic squads. Woo! Now tell me who should be first pick? Do you have any idea? And should you draft a Curler over a Ski Jumper, or go all crazy and pick the Ice Dancer instead? This is a ridiculous conversation.
What excites you most about the Olympics? I know there is at least one event you wish you could do well.
Friday, February 7, 2014
Masahiro Tanaka and Fantasy Baseball 2014 - part two
Masahiro Tanaka and Fantasy Baseball 2014 - part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (2-7-14)
TODD:
There is certainly no arguing that Andrew McCutchen or Freddie Freeman feel like safer picks than elite starters from last year like Scherzer and Sanchez. That is always a given; batters are safer. However, the point of the theory was that if you were able to grab the top starting pitchers, you'd be okay if one or two missed because your lineup would still be in fine shape. The overall dominance of Mike Trout across all scoring categories would allow for "fill-in" batters later on.
It would be a less comfortable way of drafting. There is no doubt about that. I guess it would be hard to pull the trigger on the likes of Felix Hernandez and Cliff Lee and Stephen Strasburg when so many other players seem much safer and reliable in those early rounds.
Speaking of questionable pitchers, where are you taking Masahiro Tanaka this season in fantasy? He will not technically be the New York Yankees' ace, but he will be in spirit. Or they at least need him to be. So is he an ace fantasy pitcher? He doesn't appear to be the strikeout maven that Yu Darvish is. And the possibility exists that he will bomb completely in the major leagues. So where would you take him and at what point is he too rich for your blood and you know he won't be appearing on any of your fantasy teams?
DAN:
I'm all for drafting uncomfortably, but pinning down a draft strategy that requires you to practically dislike your first four or five picks because of uncertainty alone feels wrong. I forced myself last season to not draft any pitching early. The jury is out on whether it was a successful strategy or not, but it was really hard. Doing the opposite feels nearly impossible, but with a player like Mike freaking Trout, its not completely in left field. (Did you enjoy my corny baseball pun? Did asking you about it and pointing it out completely ruin the joke? Was it already ruined from the start?)
I love that you brought up Mr. Tanaka. The newest addition to the Yankees' starting rotation is a much safer pick in my opinion than Yu Darvish was. The main reason here, when Darvish came up the Rangers were good, but not a team that won in spite of its pitching. The Yankees have been a team, for the last few seasons, that wins games in spite of its pitching. Last year was a bit more balanced, but overall their lineup has compensated for off nights by the pitching staff. Hence the consistent high win totals. So even if he is an average pitcher, a la Ivan Nova, he will get victories and do well in several statistical categories.
For some perspective, in an auction league I paid $17 for Yu Darvish in his rookie season. I thought he would be damn good and was right on the money. I wasn't going to pay higher than $22 for him, he was unproven, but he definitely warranted a solid bid with all his upside. So where does that leave Masahiro Tanaka? He has the potential to be a great number two for the Yankees and an ace on many other teams. I don't see him surpassing CC Sabathia or even Pineda's ceiling with New York, but that only improves his fantasy value. If he's the number two or three pitcher, he'll be facing other team's two and three guys. That's great news for your fantasy wins total. I think I've finally gotten around to a real answer for your question.
In a snake draft (obligatory Booo from a big fan of auctions) I would take Tanaka anywhere in round seven and below. He is not a top five pick, but snatching him in the seventh round before anyone else does seems warranted. I love the consistency and upside of Japanese pitchers and its a risk well worth taking. In an auction draft (obligatory cheers) I'd pay up to $15 bucks for him, maybe a little higher. I don't love him like I did Yu Darvish, but he is a Yankee. The mid level pitchers go in the twenty dollar range, so reaching for a rookie at fifteen bucks seems solid to me. I'd be shocked if I had to pay that much, but he's a big name and they come at a price.
TODD:
Chasing wins in fantasy baseball is a flawed and dangerous tactic. There is little correlation between a team a pitcher plays for and his ability to grab a win. There is also an even lower connection between a pitcher being great and his ability to be elite in the wins category. There is just too much out of his control.
The stat that is easily predictable is strikeouts. And with Tanaka, his strikeout potential seems to be considerably lower than Darvish. With that said, I believe your estimate is still low!
Being a big-time news story, playing for the Yankees and all the rest, Tanaka is incredibly hyped up. Although he is coming over as a worse prospect than Darvish was according to scouts, he may be a bigger deal. I can see him going earlier in snake drafts than you mentioned and for more dough in auctions. Of course, I'm with you. I'll stay away from Tanaka in all leagues unless he becomes a bargain...which won't happen. I would much rather get my hands on a known commodity at that price and take a chance on someone cheaper later in the draft.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Mike freaking Trout and Fantasy Baseball 2014 - part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (2-3-14)
[Seesaw Sports will soon be moving to Buzzchomp - stay tuned - you won't miss a beat]
TODD:
Some reputable sites around the web have begun to open up their fantasy baseball leagues for the 2014 season this week.
First of all... Yeah!!!!!!!!!!
Secondly, a small piece of information has come to my attention in regards to this news. The information is specifically the projections for Angels outfielder Mike Trout during the 2014 season.
In normal fantasy baseball leagues, there are five scoring categories: runs, home runs, RBI, steals and batting average. More advanced leagues often include on-base percentage as well. In reference to those six categories, an elite hitter usually excels in three or four.
A player like Miguel Cabrera (the nearly unanimous number two player in fantasy this season) is a great performer in five of the six. He will put up elite numbers in runs, HRs, RBI, BA and OBP. The only category in which he offers little to no production is steals. This is fine considering his other skills.
However, in terms of six-category production, there are very few men who reach that point. Some guys will give a little production in all six. Others will be serviceable in four and average in two, or some combination therein. Only one man though is a legit threat to lead the league in any or all six of those categories: Mike Trout, the clear number one player in fantasy baseball.
Forgetting even 2014 projections, Trout's career numbers in each category look something like this rounded for one season: 115 runs, 28 HRs, 90 RBI, 40 steals, .325 BA and .410 OBP. In other words, Trout is amazing in EVERYTHING. And those figures are just a rough estimate based off his two full seasons in the majors. Imagine if he continues to get better...
This is, eventually, bringing me to my point. Most fantasy baseball owners draft hitters early and often. Pitching is less predictable and vacillates more. Thus, it makes logical sense to grab the sure things at the plate in the early rounds and load up on pitchers later on, hoping that a few have good seasons.
If, however, you have the first pick and draft Mike Trout, should this theory change?
Rather than load up on hitters early, if you are able to take Trout first and then grab four or five of the top dozen starting pitchers in baseball, can't you fill out a lineup of hitters afterwards? There won't be many multi-category performers left in the middle rounds, but there will be one and two-skill guys available. Guys like Everth Cabrera (runs and steals) or Mark Trumbo (HRs and RBI) don't produce across the board, but they excel in certain aspects of the game.
Is Trout enough to swing an entire draft process? If I get the first pick, I may be enticed enough to find out.
DAN:
I have to first mention that it's wonderful to immediately look towards the baseball season the second after the NFL season so abruptly ends. Bring on baseball!
Please oh please waffle over this decision just a bit longer. It will only put me in a better position to finally defeat you and your fantasy baseball genius brain, or Geno as like to call it. If you are lucky enough to get the first pick in the fantasy baseball draft then you better select Mike freaking Trout. On a side note, its kind of disrespectful of you to not use his full name. Its Mike freaking Trout, who you better pick first or be doomed to lose.
Any who, I'm in the camp of people who have learned the hard way, through experience, that no matter how great you think you've done at drafting pitching, you didn't do a good job. Go right ahead, draft Mike freaking Trout and then load up on four or five of the top dozen pitchers with your next five picks. You know what will inevitably happen? Two or three of those five "top" pitchers will be completely mediocre. Sure, you'll get two who are very strong, maybe even dominant. And if you're very lucky, one will even be a top three pitcher. But most likely those "top" five pitchers will be slightly above average. Is that how we win in fantasy baseball? By drafting a team of slightly above average players to accompany the best player in the league?
Well we both know that the answer there is NO. You're playing mind games aren't you? Trying to warp my thinking, make me go against the cardinal knowledge of the game and rely on last season's pitching statistics to skew my hardened draft knowledge. Well sir, I'm calling you out. For shame.
I'd honestly like to believe that last season's top pitchers will once again perform at a high level. But there is too much history over the last five MLB seasons to ignore; it's simply not the truth. Pitchers rarely dominate year to year. They can still win games, but they don't dominate fantasy statistical categories. There are a few exceptions, a la Clayton Kershaw, but sit there and tell me with a straight face that you know Max Scherzer or Anibal Sanchez are going to have great seasons once again. I'm putting my money on Andrew McCutchen and Freddie Freeman thank you very much.
Friday, January 31, 2014
NBA All Stars: Should fans decide - part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-31-14)
[Part one - All Star teams collide]
TODD:
I have to address the more important issue now, Kobe Bryant. His inclusion in the starting lineup of the NBA All-Star game bothers me for myriad of reasons. This is a fan vote of course, but that doesn't mean the fans deserve it.
What is happening here is the NBA is turning into the MLB. Either the game counts or it doesn't. And what I mean is not literally whether who wins the All-Star game matters in basketball like in baseball. But the game acknowledgement does. A player making an All-Star game is historic. It matters for the legacy of a player, as well as the story of the league.
As you pointed out, Kobe's run of All-Star invites will continue. This will mark his 16th selection in his 18-year career. When it comes time to determine Hall of Fame resumes and where a player stands in the pantheon of his sport, All-Star games are often referenced. When next generation's Bill Simmons releases The Book of Basketball Part Two and tries to determine who is the better Laker between Kobe and Magic Johnson, the All-Star game appearances will come up. And you know what? In forty years, no one is going to remember that Kobe's 2014 selection was a joke and a debacle. It will just be an appearance like any of the others.
I guess my problem with the fan vote is that they are too stupid to be given this kind of power. There are only three solutions. Here they are, in order of practicality from "impossible" to "why is this not already the case?!?":
1. Lessen the historical value of a player making an All-Star game. Value All-NBA team selections instead and phase out the worth of the All-Star game appearance itself.
2. Don't let fans vote. Fans are, by definition, biased and crazy.
3. Give the fans a crop of players to vote from for the starting lineups. A player such as Kobe Bryant would not be eligible since he's barely played this season.
Tell me why number three wouldn't work.
DAN:
I'm glad you acknowledged the ridiculousness of options one and two. There are very few benchmarks to compare players between generations. All Star game appearances is one of the best, disregarding the obvious caveat where a player past his prime continues to get voted in. And we have to let the fans vote. The All Star game is just a show. There is little to no defense played, so it is literally (spoken a la Rob Lowe's character from Parks and Recreation) a fun event for the fans to enjoy. They should get to see who they want, with one caveat that you very nicely addressed in option three.
I really like the idea of giving the fans a specific ballot, but leaving Kobe Bryant off entirely would be a HUGE mistake by the NBA. The All Star voting is international. The NBA wants to grow the sport internationally. Kobe Bryant is the most popular and most famous NBA player internationally. See the problem? He got voted in because the world still loves him and probably doesn't even realize he's been injured, or doesn't care. I know this speaks to a different issue, but the NBA has to market its most popular players and Kobe Bryant is up there in the top three, if not number one.
It would however be easy for the NBA to get the final All Star voting results, look at them and rule that a player must have played in at least 50% of his team's games this season to be a starter. The player can still be on the All Star team, but they can't be considered a starter if they've played less than half of his team's games. This is not a particularly unfair rule and still leaves voting in the hands of the fans. Let them vote in all the hurt guys they want, but they won't be named a starter because they've been injured or suspended.
Did I solve your problem?
TODD:
That fails to solve the problem of a player's career resume being bumped up by faulty selections. The fact that a player is actually "starting" the game is irrelevant to me. Kobe Bryant did not deserve to be named an All-Star this season. Thus, he should not have been on the ballot if we can't trust fans to actually make that distinction.
This event is not supposed to be a popularity contest. It is supposed to reward the players who are having the best season. Otherwise, Jeremy Lin should just be starting point guard for both teams. Let him switch sides at halftime.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Super Bowl debate on 'NFL Spin Zone'
Check out our Super Bowl XLVIII debate over on NFL Spin Zone. We've got heroes, villains, Peyton Manning, Richard Sherman and even more NFL sports debate.
Super Bowl debate Part one
Super Bowl debate Part two
Super Bowl debate Part three
Super Bowl debate Part four
www.NFLSpinZone.com - all NFL all the time
[Credit http://www.jrn.com for image]
Monday, January 27, 2014
NBA All Star teams collide - part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-27-14)
DAN:
The lineups for the NBA All Star teams got announced and there are a few obvious points of contention and one major question. Obviously Kobe Bryant starting for the West is a classic case of fan intervention. He's barely played this season, but his streak of All Star games will remain intact.
I want to know, who do you like in a straight up match of five on five? The East starters or those from the West?
Eastern Conference
| LeBron James, MIA | |
| Paul George, IND | |
| Carmelo Anthony, NYK | |
| Dwyane Wade, MIA | |
| Kyrie Irving, CLE |
Western Conference
| Kevin Durant, OKC | |
| Stephen Curry, GS | |
| Kobe Bryant, LAL | |
| Blake Griffin, LAC | |
| Kevin Love, MIN |
That brings us to our final players for each starting squad. Kyrie Irving and Carmelo Anthony to match up with Stephen Curry. I'll take Curry over either one of those men individually. Yes, yes the Paul George double team could hold us back, leaving either Melo or Irving alone on the perimeter. But it won't matter; we'll be raining so many three pointers your squad will crying to their mamas.
TODD:
I want to talk about Kobe Bean Bryant, but let me first address these "lineups" you referenced.
Everyone, including me, was all for the removal of the mandatory center position on the All-Star starting lineup. It was instead replaced by a declaration of simply "front court player." However, it is clear that this generalization was taken too far. The East does not even have a feasible team to trot out. Hopefully, for their sake, Dwyane Wade is not able to play and they can replace him with an actual front court player. Right now, the East is comprised on two guards, two small forwards and whatever you want to categorize LeBron James as.
Fortunately, the West isn't much better in terms of mismatches. Kevin Durant is a stretch four. Kevin Love and Blake Griffin are legitimate power forwards except neither one of them can protect the rim on defense. The best shot-blocker in the starting lineups is probably Durant. As of 1/26, not a single one of these 10 men was in the top 40 in the NBA in blocks. It's a bit ridiculous.
Because of this, it seems arbitrary to even field your question on which side would win a five on five matchup. Not only are all 10 of these guys not going to be healthy enough to play, but these 10 men hardly resemble two workable starting lineups.
If they were going to suit up, the game would really come down to one matchup though.
Kyrie Irving and Stephen Curry could match each other even if Curry is a better shooter; neither is a very good defensive player and both would probably score at will (in what will become a theme here).
Kobe and Wade, as you mentioned, could also hold each other down, or at least match each other offensively with their old men games of semi-post-ups and half fades.
Paul George could guard Durant as well as any human can. George is one of the most physically gifted wings in the NBA. Durant does look like the league MVP at the halfway mark of the season, but PG was the MVP at the quarter mark, so he's nothing to sniff at.
Carmelo would then slot onto Blake Griffin. Neither could really stop the other in the post, so it would just be a scoring barrage. But this is the All-Star game after all.
That leaves just two men to check each other: the Akron Hammer and poor, poor Kevin Love. Love is probably the best combination of rebounding and outside shooting we have in the league right now, but he cannot hope to contain LeBron in any facet of the game. The West would have to employ some sort of rotation zone and force the East to beat them from the outside. This is a plausible tactic as the East does not have anywhere near the shooters the West does. However, athletically and fundamentally, the East has a huge edge just because they are playing with the skill sets of five smalls.
If the West had been given an actual center who could block shots or someone more imposing than either Griffin or Love, I would like its chances. However, as it stands, the East has the edge simply because there is no spot on the court where the West can take advantage of them.
Friday, January 24, 2014
NFL Pro Bowl Draft Recap - part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-24-14)
[Part one - The fake Pro Bowl Draft]
TODD:
The actual Pro Bowl draft took place Wednesday night, although it was taped in Hawaii so it wasn't night time. Instead, the players were nestled in a beach getaway, lounging underneath tents, waiting to be called. It was...kind of ridiculous.
When Jerry Rice or Deion Sanders made a selection, that player would make their way to the stage, receive a lei garland and get interviewed. I was surprised when I found out the actual picking process was going to be televised. I had assumed they would televise some sort of studio show where they announced all the selections and then discussed them. No sir. This was a three-hour barrage of uncomfortable interviews, awkward moments and boredom. Fortunately I suppose, there was a mini-draft held Tuesday where special teams players and interior linemen were peddled away to each side. So at least we were spared the punter interviews.
Of course, the draft itself is still a fascinating premise and, I suppose, that is only intensified by the players being there in person to feel slighted.
According to ESPN, Robert Mathis was in the "green room" for a long while and witnessed other players growing increasingly upset at not having been picked. We can only hope this will make for an actual good game on Sunday.
The other interesting wrinkle was the order players were selected. Apparently Team Deion selected Andrew Luck with its first pick on Wednesday. Then, it took Cam Newton with its second pick! Why, you ask? Well because the two coaching staffs of the teams are the Indianapolis staff and the Carolina staff respectively. Deion took Luck to work with his own people and then snatched Cam so he would be going against the Panthers coaches.
Overall though, the process seemed pretty innocuous. Each team grabbed some defensive guys early, as was my strategy. Although, because of injuries and Super Bowl commitments, a number of the top skill players are not playing in the Pro Bowl, so that may have steered the captains away from those positions at first.
Checking out the rosters, it seems that Team Rice is a bit better on paper. Of course, they don't play games on paper!! Although, it is the Pro Bowl, so maybe they should.
DAN:
I'm kind of disappointed in this whole draft charade. It had so much potential on paper! But like the actual Pro Bowl, this draft was nothing short of lack luster and drawn out.You know what needed to happen for the Pro Bowl Draft to be fun and interesting? The NFL needed to televise our version of a draft. We got it right!
First off, let them pick teams regardless of who is going to participate. Not having Peyton Manning or Tom Brady in the draft ruins half the fun. And how awesome would it have been for Jerry Rice to draft Tom Brady and then find out a day later, or at the end of the draft even, that he'd been replaced by Alex Smith? That is television gold. A complete missed opportunity.
Second, don't pick your full rosters on TV. They did do a pre-draft of the positions most fans don't care about. That's kind of alienating and unnecessary. Just draft a starting roster on camera and do your backups in rapid fire mode during a commercial break. Also, I know that the players are spending the week in Hawaii, but don't make them sit there. Most went through that hell once already, during the actual NFL Draft before their rookie seasons. The honor is in being selected to the Pro Bowl, but now you take that away by making them squirm on national TV because Deion Sanders snubbed you. No one likes to be last picked. Come on man!
The Pro Bowl Draft could be a perfect 90 minute television event. Show film of each guy as he's selected. Let the captains debate on camera who they are taking and then reveal the name like on 'Wheel of Fortune' or something. But making it like the actual NFL Draft? Seriously? Someone is getting fired over this. I'm calling it now.
Monday, January 20, 2014
NFL Pro Bowl Draft - part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-20-14)
The first ever NFL Pro Bowl Draft is taking place this Wednesday, January 22nd. There are no conference affiliations anymore. Two captains, Deion Sanders and Jerry Rice, will be selecting players, draft-style. We at Seesaw Sports wanted in on the fun and drafted our own teams. After flipping a fake coin to see who would pick first, Dan won. So without further ado...
Note: Our draft does not take into consideration who may or may not opt out of the actual Pro Bowl game. We're just trying to make the best teams for this game; that's all.
THE DRAFT:
1) With the first pick in the 2014 fake Pro Bowl draft, Dan selects quarterback Tom Brady.
TODD: Whoa! Upset City!
2) Todd selects Defensive End J.J. Watt.
DAN: Well, now you can wait on a quarterback I guess.
TODD: Yeah, that may be the flaw in this draft system.
3) Dan selects Wide Receiver Calvin Johnson.
TODD: Damn, I was hoping Megatron was going to be there at four.
DAN: That was a long shot at best.
4) Todd selects Wide Receiver Brandon Marshall.
5) Dan selects Tight End Jimmy Graham.
DAN: And that's how you know it's a passing league.
TODD: Which is why I am going to need to rush the passer.
6) Todd selects Defensive End Robert Quinn.
DAN: You are loading up on defense. Did you forget that this is the Pro Bowl?
7) Dan selects Wide Receiver A.J. Green.
8) Todd selects Running Back LeSean McCoy.
9) Dan selects Defensive Tackle Ndamukong Suh.
DAN: Since you jumped all over the outside pressure, I'm going mean and angry in the middle.
TODD: I want some more pass rushing. Brady is going to be on his back all day.
10) Todd selects Outside Linebacker Robert Mathis.
DAN: Good luck getting by my next pick.
11) Dan selects Center Ryan Kalil.
TODD: Interesting.
12) Todd selects Cornerback Patrick Peterson.
13) Dan selects Linebacker Patrick Willis.
DAN: I almost thought you stole my pick.
TODD: Now you're coming over to the defensive side.
14) Todd selects Tackle Joe Staley.
15) Dan selects Defensive Tackle Haloti Ngata.
DAN: Whoever your quarterback is will have fits all day now.
TODD: It's hard to pressure the QB up the middle. I'm not feeling great about Shady McCoy going crazy now though.
16) Todd selects Cornerback Richard Sherman.
17) Dan selects Outside Linebacker John Abraham.
TODD: John Abraham made the Pro Bowl? What year is this?
DAN: Ex-Jet still a Jet in my mind.
18) Todd selects Safety Earl Thomas.
TODD: I want an outside backer to run with Jimmy Graham and there just isn't one. I'll have to take a safety to do it instead.
19) Dan selects Fullback Mike Tolbert.
DAN: There are only two fullbacks to pick from, so I'm striking first.
TODD: By all means.
20) Todd selects Guard Logan Mankins.
21) Dan selects Cornerback Brandon Flowers.
TODD: VT Hokie in the house!
DAN: Woot!
22) Todd selects Quarterback Drew Brees.
TODD: Is this allowed, can I actually leave Peyton Manning on the board?
DAN: Where is this game being played; if it's not New Orleans...
TODD: Hawaii has nice weather.
DAN: If you don't take Manning, can I select him as my punter?
TODD: Sure, but then he'd have to punt.
23) Dan selects Defensive End Cameron Jordan.
24) Todd selects Defensive Tackle Gerald McCoy.
25) Dan selects Safety Eric Berry.
TODD: Damn, I waited too long for my strong safety.
26) Todd selects Outside Linebacker Justin Houston.
27) Dan selects Outside Linebacker Ahmad Brooks.
28) Todd selects Tackle Tyron Smith.
29) Dan selects Tackle Jason Peters.
TODD: You finally got Kalil some help up front.
30) Todd selects Kick Returner Dexter McCluster.
31) Dan selects Tackle Joe Thomas.
32) Todd selects Tight End Julius Thomas.
33) Dan selects Cornerback Darrelle Revis.
TODD: Another former Jet past his prime.
DAN: Agreed.
34) Todd selects Kicker Justin Tucker.
TODD: MVP! MVP! MVP!
DAN: Haha
35) Dan selects Running Back Adrian Peterson.
TODD: It seems funny to get him so late. It also seems foolish to take him over Jamaal Charles.
DAN: Only if Peterson isn't healthy. Otherwise, no way.
36) Todd selects Wide Receiver Josh Gordon.
TODD: Fantasy MVP! Hey, what would have happened if I took Antonio Brown right there at wide receiver? You'd be left without a return man option.
DAN: I would have gotten a free pick!
TODD: But you wouldn't have been able to return any kicks or punts. Special teams edge Team Todd!
DAN: I can throw Peyton Manning back there.
37) Dan selects Defensive End Greg Hardy.
38) Todd selects Defensive Tackle Dontari Poe.
39) Dan selects Safety Eric Weddle.
40) Todd selects Linebacker Luke Kuechly.
41) Dan selects Guard Jahri Evans.
42) Todd selects Safety Kam Chancellor.
TODD: Another Hokie in the Pro Bowl. Hey, I just realized I took three Seattle Seahawk defensive backs.
DAN: They must be good or something.
43) Dan selects Guard Mike Iupati.
44) Todd selects Guard Louis Vasquez.
45) Dan selects Punter Brandon Fields.
TODD: Damn, now I'm left with the punter no one had ever heard of.
DAN: MVP!
46) Todd selects Center Mike Pouncey.
46) Todd selects Center Mike Pouncey.
TODD: Not many options left.
47) Dan selects Kicker Matt Prater.
48) Todd selects Fullback Marcel Reece.
49) Dan selects Kick Returner Antonio Brown.
50) Todd selects Punter Johnny Hekker.
TEAM SUMMARY:
POSITION TODD'S TEAM DAN'S TEAM
Quarterback Drew
Brees Tom
Brady
Running
Back LeSean
McCoy Adrian
Peterson
Tight
End Julius
Thomas Jimmy
Graham
Wide
Receiver Brandon
Marshall Calvin
Johnson
Wide
Receiver Josh
Gordon AJ
Green
Full
Back Marcel
Reece Mike
Tolbert
Center Mike
Pouncey Ryan
Kalil
O-Guard Logan
Mankins Jahri
Evans
O-Guard Mike
Iupati Louis
Vasquez
O-Tackle Joe
Staley Jason
Peters
O-Tackle Tyron
Smith Joe
Thomas
Def
End JJ
Watt Cameron Jordan
Def
End Robert
Quinn Greg
Hardy
D-Tackle Gerald
McCoy Ndamukong
Suh
D-Tackle Dontari
Poe Haloti
Ngata
Linebacker Luke
Kuechly Patrick
Willis
Outside
Linebacker Robert
Mathis John
Abraham
Outside
Linebacker Justin
Houston Ahmad
Brooks
Cornerback Patrick
Peterson Brandon
Flowers
Cornerback Richard
Sherman Darrelle
Revis
Safety Earl
Thomas Eric
Berry
Safety Kam
Chancellor Eric
Weddle
Kick
Returner Dexter
McCluster Antonio
Brown
Kicker Justin
Tucker Matt
Prater
Punter Johnny
Hekker Brandon
Fields
TODD:
That about wraps it up for us. Unfortunately we can't put our rosters on the field against each other, but that's probably for the best. My team would crush Dan's.
Now let's see what Deion and Jerry come up with, and what strategies they take in filling out the official NFL Pro Bowl rosters.
Friday, January 17, 2014
"They said what?" - Sports quotes game (Round two)
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-17-14)
[Round one]
Its time for Round two of They said what?
The Rules:
Player one presents player two with a sports quote.
- The quote can be about sports
- The quote can be said by a famous sportsman
- The quote can be both about sports and said by a famous sportsman, but NEVER neither one
The quote is given, along with three hints as to who said it. These hints can be anything from when the quote was uttered to facts about the speaker.
Player two then responds with their guess as to who said it and a brief explanation surrounding their conclusion. A correct guess is worth one point for player two. An incorrect guess is worth one point for player one.
TODD:
I'm kicking up the difficulty level for round two.
"A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be."
Hint One - This man played professional hockey.
Hint Two - After his playing career, he became part-owner of a franchise for a time.
Hint Three - He is number five all-time in career shots taken in the NHL.
DAN:
Hockey feels like a low blow, but anything about hockey immediately leads me to The Great One, Mr. Wayne Gretzky. Hint one and Hint two don't invalidate that, however, Hint three gives me pause. Gretzky is THE Great One, surely he's higher than five all-time in shots taken. Also, this stat is only cool if we are talking about a defensive player, not a man who is best known for scoring goals.
My answer is Bobby Orr. Damn I hope he owned a team for a while.
TODD:
Nailed you! My plan worked perfectly! My third hint was to throw you off the scent of Wayne Gretzky because he is indeed the correct answer.
"A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be." (by Wayne Gretzky)
DAN:
Damn it! Here's your quote.
"The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break."
Hint One: This man won a Super Bowl.
Hint Two: This man is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
Hint Three: This man is a legend both on and off the field.
TODD:
I don't know if this was payback or what, but yours seems especially tricky. It was said by a successful NFL head coach, so successful he's in the Hall of Fame. But the quote itself implies it was someone who wasn't a hard-ass or huge disciplinarian. I originally wanted to say Bill Parcells just because he's a good quote. But he was notoriously hard on his players I thought.
That leads me to go elsewhere for a guess, but who is a legend off the field as well? That makes me want to say Mike Ditka. That's who I'm going to go with; the coach of Daa Bears.
DAN:
Oh snap! That is an excellent guess, but fortunately for me its wrong. There are so many other hints that would have led you to our correct answer. Like this one: He has a well documented fear of flying.
Know it now? I'm sure you do. This quote was uttered by the one, the only, often imitated (mainly by Frank Caliendo) John Madden.
"The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break." (by John Madden)
That evens up the score at 2 points a piece, each of us getting one correct answer and one wrong. January is a tie, but let's carry the score into our next match in February/March and keep the competition going.
Monday, January 13, 2014
"They said what?" - Sports quotes game (Round one)
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-13-14)
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the wonderfully crafted game of They said what?
For those new to the game or in need of a refresher, we'll quickly run through the rules here at Seesaw Sports. Player one presents player two with a sports quote.
- The quote can be about sports
- The quote can be said by a famous sportsman
- The quote can be both about sports and said by a famous sportsman, but NEVER neither one
The quote is given, along with three hints as to who said it. These hints can be anything from when the quote was uttered to facts about the speaker.
Player two then responds with their guess as to who said it and a brief explanation surrounding their conclusion. A correct guess is worth one point for player two. An incorrect guess is worth one point for player one.
Okay, let's get ready to play round one of... They said what?
TODD:
As player one I'll kick things off with what I consider to be a medium difficulty quote.
"Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser."
Hint One - Uttered by a famous head coach.
Hint Two - He was notoriously hard and expected perfection.
Hint Three - He coached in the NFL.
DAN:
Well, well, well. For our inaugural game of They said what? you picked an excellent quote, but unfortunately for you, this game is too easy for me.
Hint one pretty much gave it away. Vince Lombardi. Hint two solidified my answer. Vince Lombardi. And hint three tied a pretty pink bow on your gift wrapped point. Vince Lombardi.
"Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser." (by Vince Lombardi)
TODD:
Yeah, Vince Lombardi is correct. That was too easy. I started off soft; don't get too cocky.
DAN:
My turn. Let's see how you like this quote.
"It's good sportsmanship to not pick up lost golf balls while they are still rolling."
Hint One - He did not play golf.
Hint Two - He is famous for his writing.
Hint Three - His famed name is not his given name.
TODD:
Challenging, but I think I know it. The fact that he talked about sports but did not play the sport in question gave me pause at first. I thought it might be a comedian. Once you said he was a writer, I was pretty sure I knew it. The existence of an alternate name sealed the deal.
"It's good sportsmanship to not pick up lost golf balls while they are still rolling," has to have been said by Mark Twain.
DAN:
Damn, thought I may have stumped you there. We're all tied up at one.
SCORE (after one round):
Player one (Todd) - 1 point
Player two (Dan) - 1 point
Friday, January 10, 2014
Hello college football Playoffs - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-10-14)
[Part one - Goodbye BCS]
DAN:
The BCS rankings are based on numbers, statistics and lots of other substantial information that has its basis in real life. Contrast that to the Coach's poll which is merely the opinion of the coaches or their assistants or brother-in-law. I did not sign up for the loss of these rankings, simply a four team playoff to replace the one game BCS title game.
Using mathematics is usually a good idea and I can't disagree with you on this one. My gripe with the BCS system was that nearly every season the top five teams were basically equal. It felt arbitrary to let the computer rank a one loss team from a stronger conference over an undefeated team from a weaker conference. They should play each other instead! That's what was missing and that's what excites me about this playoff. The top four teams get to play for the title. Great! A group of randomly selected individuals deciding the top four teams instead of the BCS computers... sucky!
TODD:
Well that was almost a prophetic response by you. The first half of the BCS Championship game went exactly as you described. Auburn's defense was holding down FSU and confusing the young quarterback with blitzes and faking pressure...Then they decided to play thirty more minutes. Auburn struggled to produce points and Famous Jameis drove the Seminoles down for all the points they needed, taking the lead on their final drive with just seconds remaining. It was really a great game and fitting end to the BCS.
But enough pleasantries, because discussing the upcoming playoff is anything but pleasant. Yes, the BCS rankings will be done away with. So if you thought it was arbitrary for a computer system to rank a certain team second overall over another, get ready! We will see a panel of humans try to decipher the validity of teams ranked four through ten or so. How many teams this season would have had a claim to that fourth playoff spot? At least three teams: Michigan State, Stanford and Baylor. You could even have talked me into Missouri and South Carolina or Ohio State. The final decisions of the playoff committee are going to be so arbitrary it's ridiculous.
As far as I know, there will be no voting released, just a final four (Or, technically, a final four plus eight I suppose, since they are still playing other "top" bowl games that literally no one is going to care about now). Also, apparently the group will release rankings just a couple times throughout the year, so we may not have a feeling about where they stand from their final ranking all the way to the bowl announcements.
I wouldn't have minded if they left the BCS intact and simply expanded the final from two to four as you said. That would have been ideal. Now, I think we're in store for a shit show. Mythbusters once did an episode on shit hitting the fan; whether it actually splatters and covers EVERYTHING in its wake. The results weren't perfect, but they decided it was a plausible figure of speech. So if the BCS was shit hitting the fan, this new playoff committee is going to be like shit-covered fans being dropped from the sky, into the jet stream of an airplane.
DAN:
I love your poop analogy and I definitely was spot on with my BCS prediction, as far as the first half was concerned. I missed the boat entirely with the whole come back, kick return for a touchdown and then miracle victory thing. Moving on...
There are two very simple things that make the college football regular season easy to follow and fun as hell. The first is the knowledge that these teams are competing for a top tier bowl game, not just any old bowl game since everyone gets that. The second is the weekly top twenty five rankings of the best teams in the nation. We lose our first thing instantly by adding a four team playoff. No one cares about the Rose Bowl game now, they just want to be in the playoff. Before, if you weren't one of the top two teams then you wanted to win your conference to make the nationally televised bowl game. In the case of the Big Ten and Pac-12, its the Rose Bowl. The conference title is now very much diminished, as its highly likely the top team in both the Big Ten and Pac-12 will make the playoff in the upcoming season. Ok, so we have to lose something to gain something else. That's fine.
I was on board with the playoff up until the loss of the weekly BCS rankings. Every college football season begins with a pre-season top twenty five ranking, but the true rankings were never fully realized until the BCS rankings came out. This was when we as fans could look at the teams ranked one to twenty five and feel confident in the order. It was updated every Sunday night on ESPN, debated endlessly on Monday and Tuesday and then updated again week after week after week. The buzz around college football was huge from this. Huge! Now its all gone...
If the "group of super smart college football geniuses who will pick the playoff teams" don't rank the top twenty five every week of the season, then what are we following as fans? Are they hoping we go back to caring about the conference rankings and positioning? That's just stupid. The conferences only mean something to those teams in them. The playoffs will be national.
I don't think your poop covered fans being dropped through airplane turbines analogy was strong enough. I'm picturing a delicious wedding cake with a giant fat guy picking his nose and then grabbing pieces of the cake and eating them. He continues to do this for a good thirty to forty minutes until the cake is destroyed and full of boogers. Then he farts on it and hands his wife a piece. That piece of cake is our college football product.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)